Talk:George Washington/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Drama, personalizations, and trying to return to calm and common sense.

This is way too long, hit 'show' if you want to read it, or just read the last few 'grafs beginning with 'oh my god' for a 'summary'

There has been far too much drama here; this is unfortunate. Arbill44, are you aware that what is written on a user's talk page is public, not private? Some extremely ugly things have been said about editors who are engaging here, and this is not acceptable under wikipedia's policies. I understand that you are elderly; I'm no spring chicken myself. It is terribly easy to fall into feeling like a victim, and in victimizing others, when discussion on Wikipedia involves disagreement, in particular when one is unfamiliar with the relatively formal process in place for coming to consensus. The problem is that Wikipedia - this volunteer encyclopedia - has very, very very specific rules of conduct, explicitly in place to keep editors focused on improving the encyclopedia, rather than engaging in personal attacks. One of the biggest problems here is a dichotomy of misunderstandings, in my opinion. There is a 'language' to wikipedia editor discussions. It incorporates many Terms of Art specific to cordial, collegial, and collaborative (shall we create a Three Letter Acronym [a TLA] for this new invention of mine? CCC? I kid) editing, all three of which are absolutely necessary to the process of improving wikipedia. Those Terms of Art, when tossed in with the other words of the salad of editor discussion, can, very easily, sound like personal attacks. I know from your comments elsewhere that my use of one of these terms of art has been misconstrued, and for that I apologize, and I hope I can explain it (this is not an isolated misconstrual, only an example). You took great umbrage at my comment "We don't include opinion that's not directly from a reliable secondary source." Taken in a vacuum, it certainly does sound like I'm questioning the integrity of the editors who wrote the article that has spawned this massive - for lack of a better term - shit-show. I was not, not in the slightest, not a tiny particle inside a tiny speck inside a mote, questioning anyone's integrity in writing that. Let me be very clear: "reliable secondary source" is a specific term of art on wikipedia. It is described - in great detail - in the many guidelines that exist for how we edit this encyclopedia. I'm not inclined to go searching for links to that at this moment, as I want to move this discussion forward. But in brief - as an encyclopedia, everything that is added to "article space" (a page of the encyclopedia), has to be able to be traced back to a source that editors and readers can verify themselves as being 'reliable' (meaning it was written in a place that shares information that is true and without embellisment or distortion (e.g. The National Enquirer (in the US) or [to my best understanding] The Daily Star in the UK, are _not_ considered reliable sources). When I challenged the wording presented, I was pointing out that we had not been presented with clarity on whether what was being added was an editor's personal opinion of what a source said, an interpretation of what the source said, or was what the source specifically said. Look - I was a 'newbie' here once myself - fourteen years ago. There is a mind-numbingly diverse set of rules and guidelines that editors are enjoined to conform to, and regrettably those rules and guidelines are found in ponderous documents that take patience to read and understand. Hell, there's countless policies here that I have no clue of even after fourteen years, so on a routine basis, other editors who have traveled down the contorted avenues to find this or that rule, will mention it in discussion - and off I go to discover yet a new bit of context to how this thing, Wikipedia, works. In that regard, I still consider myself a newbie. Not until I retire am I likely to get around to reading the volumes and volumes of policy here. So in the meantime, I usually just cleave to little things, fixing typos in random articles, and raising concerns when I happen across a new addition to an encyclopedia page that seems not to have been written "neutrally" (another term of art). That's what started this whole thing. I challenged editor Domskirk's addition - this is a very normal thing on wikipedia, it's meant to find common ground and to seek the truth that belongs in the encyclopedia. We discussed it, toned down the language a bit, and then off this went, sometimes riding the rails, sometimes turning into a catastrophic multi-vehicle collision. Boy this is turning out long, it could be argued my comments have no place here on this article's talk page, but I'm hoping we can all turn off our thrusters and try to gently glide into formation, rather than colliding like pinballs. Domskirk - I hope you understand, I had no intent to personally attack you in my criticisms of the most recent version you posted. As editor Arbill has said - "My flabber was ghasted!". Frustration certainly leaked through, my frustration being with the process and progress not with you as a person or editor. Arbill44 - I hope you understand, we are peers here, as editors, and that does not in any way suggest that we don't respect what is clearly a great deal of investigation and research on these matters that you've engaged in over the years. Nor does it mean that we somehow think that our understanding of the matters exceeds yours somehow. When we question sources, or wording, we aren't questioning your integrity as a person. All any of us want is an accurate, brief, inclusion in this article pertaining to the historical matters that we've all been discussing. You must - I implore you - forgive many of us for _not_ being subject matter experts in this. Again - this is a volunteer encyclopedia, the only prerequisite is a computer and the ability to type (and yes, sometimes some of us seem like monkeys at a typewriter, I'm certainly capable of 2349v2rf##m idf 2#431 kvp3!0 lidf am oopr0wn, myself). An important aspect in this, ironically, is that _non-subject matter experts_ play an important role here. We, the uninvolved and uninformed, can approach the encyclopedia's material exactly as uninvolved and uninformed _readers_ approach the material. We can act - hopefully without overstating it - as a bulwark against impassioned additions to the encyclopedia that may be colored by personal involvement, intense political, religious, or other inclinations. etc, that can lead to skewed content being presented without the balance necessary to an encyclopedia. Again, I take pains to stress, the above isn't meant to suggest that you in some way are trying to alter the encyclopedia on some nefarious agenda. We both want the same thing - an accurate encyclopedia. Early on I brought up the wikipedia policy of 'conflict of interest'. That term indeed has negative connotations, unfortunately. But the policy itself is straightforward, and is intended to avoid much of what we've gone through here. You - Arbill44 - are very close to this matter. That doesn't preclude you from contributing - but your passions are very plain for all of us to see, and passions often cloud perceptions and judgements. Nobody here has wantonly or willingly called your character into question - but you have clearly taken some of the comments that way. That's why it is often suggested that the subject matter expert step-back from the matter. Not to exclude the subject matter expert, or to prevent their contributions - but to try to keep the perspective calm, cordial, collegial, and collaborative (now I've gone and created CCCC). Your expertise in this matter is absolutely invaluable. This is incontrovertible, I don't think there's any editor here who would suggest that your deep knowledge isn't of incalculable valuable. Please, please, when we question this, or that, or another matter, we are questioning this, that, or another _matter_, not you the person or your knowledge or expertise. Everything in the encyclopedia has to be written in a neutral tone, has to be verifiable by any reader here, and has to fit within the context of the article in question, and it's importance to the subject matter. The Arbill affair is important - but in the context of the entirety of George Washington's life, experience, service, etc. - it is not more or less important than any other detail. Within the context of Arbill and his biography, it is very important. Historical figures present complicated challenges, history being written by the victor and all that. I welcome the inclusion of information pertaining to the Arbill affair - it has significance, but again - within the whole body of GW and his life, service, etc - it is _only_ significant, not of supreme significance. The question of whether the letter was 'covered up' is a matter of speculation on motive - if the source material questions the motive, then we must put it in quotes - it can't just be tendered that 'it's a clear as day that Washington intended to cover it up'. Oh, my, god, I've written a lot. I blame a delicious cup of Peet's Aged Sumatra, and refuse to take any responsibility for it: the bean did it, not me. It's time for me to shut up, or at least bring this back on the rails: This matter under discussion - Washington ordering that an unconditional prisoner be hanged - belongs in the article. It is directly relevant to GW. That his letter, ordering that, was not found in the historical record until recently, is interesting, and may be relevant to Washington, though we have no way to confirm whether Washington 'covered it up', or the newspapers, or his staff, or what have you (and here, my subject inexpertise is in full blossom, because i'm likely miswording, misconstruing, and just in general mis-sing the details, but I've been bloviating here for well more than an hour, so at the moment I have intense empathy for Asgill44's mental state, it's all maddening.) We must, however, word it without implying motive unless that is actually found in the historical record. Okay - back on track, lets get this done briefly and expeditiously (he said without a hint of irony considering the wall of text above). I presented a blended proposal further above. If there are inaccuracies in it, please: state the inaccuracy, not the surrounding history going back to the medieval era. Deal strictly - if you please - in presenting the text in my proposal, followed by your corrected text (you being any editor who has that fact to hand). I don't think my proposal needs a wholesale reworking, nor replacement. Neither am I committed to "my" version or some form of it being the final text. I am not invested in this matter (he said, again, unironically). I just want to see this done, to the reasonable, collaborative, compromise that may not satisfy everyone, but is an acceptable distillation of this into George Washington's biography. Anastrophe (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, wow, what do I say? I started to copy and paste some of your points, but then realised that I would have to recopy everything you said! This was the last, so let's go for it: "That his letter, ordering that, was not found in the historical record until recently, is interesting". I'm not sure if that is true or not. Washington is not my subject of expertise and I have only come across him and some of his letters in the process of researching Asgill (I had never realised the similarity with my username of Arbil before - which is Libra backwards - Librans are fanatics for justice and balance). No, the point is that, if anyone has ever noticed that Washington did not include his letter of 18 May 1782 for publication in the New Haven Gazette of 16 November 1786, they have never revealed that 'find' before - until it was revealed in December 2019. I've explained, many times now, that the letters 'published' did not tally with the 'number of letters written'. How long GW's letters have been available, online or elsewhere, is something I have no idea about. Certainly the letter mentioned above has been available online ever since the Founders Archives have been online - you probably know the answer to that, but I don't. It is indesputable that GW did not publish his letter of 18 May 1782 because it showed him very clearly ordering 'protected' prisoners to draw lots and one of them to be sent to the gallows, so what other conclusion can be drawn but that he was covering up that fact, and he did not want anyone to know? He, after all, signed that treaty. It wasn't a good look at all, which is confirmed in the publication found by Victoriaearle today. This paragraph I have just written summarises exactly what I would like to be included in the GW article, and Dormskirk's submission covers that succinctly. Dormskirk's submission is also an exact mirror copy of what is published in the Journal. It is the only source needed for the two straightforward points I have raised.

I deplore the fact that some here wish to make it a homage to Washington for so kindly writing to Asgill that he didn't want Asgill mistreated. That letter, of 13 November 1782, was authorising him to leave America and go home to his loving and frantically worried family. It was a bit late to say he didn't want him mistreated, after he had been beaten up and taunted, regularly, for six months. I have no way of knowing if GW knew of this, but suspect he did, because he had heard how well Dayton treated him and he didn't like it and wanted Asgill removed from the tender care offered by Elias Dayton (when Asgill first arrived in Chatham). Anyway, his mistreatment, and Washington not having wished it, is totally irrelevant to the two main issues. I also resent that people are finding it difficult to understand that the French Court saved Asgill's life - not Washington. Washington signed his passport to leave, but only because had he not done so he would have had major problems with the French, who deplored his planned actions. I have corrected these factual errors and more (it was William Franklin who ordered Lippincott to murder Huddy, not the British, who deplored the situastion) so often that, for me, it is getting boring! When one has to go on constantly repeating corrections to the same errors I am afraid I lose patience. I definitely would not have made a good school teacher, so it is just as well that I wasn't!

I am in touch with the Editor of the Journal and he is working on a response. I only hope that his response will make it all much easier for editors here to follow. I know none of you know him, but my dealings with him, for a six month period of time, showed him to be one of the most industrious worshipers of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that I have ever, in my 75 years on this planet, encountered. His 'researcher' wife is the most amazing researcher I have ever come across in 18 years of dealing only with archivists. 126 others worked on one aspect or another to produce a completely re-written version of The Asgill Affair, and I would urge editors here to accept it as one of the best sources which will ever be available to researchers. I would urge editors here to believe me - and I seriously don't mean this in a vanity sense - but there is nobody on the planet that knows the facts of Asgill more than I do. I have deeply resented having abuse hurled at me because I am "English" and live in "Englnd" - (amongst other snide comments hurled my way) which instantly put me on the defensive. I am at my worst when I am on the defensive. If I am treated well I will respond well.

It would be really nice if we could all be friends - I love making new friends. Mike Abel, the Editor, writes how the Charles Asgill story has brought us all together, Americans and British, after two and a half centuries, and I loved every single second of my time working with the American team. The were superb and so thrilled to be changing history. 18 May 2019 (please note the date!) when I met up with Martha Abel and gave her a copy of Asgill's letter was the day history began to be changed. I'm going to sign off as Anne and I would gretly appreciaste being called Anne (I hate my username)! Sorry this is almost as long as your post! Arbil44 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne makes some good points not least her last comment about us all being friends. At a technical level Anne is very much the subject matter expert and makes important observations which include (i) the late timing of Washington's comments in his letter of 13 November 1782 (ii) the fact that it was William Franklin who ordered Lippincott to murder Huddy (ii) and the fact that it was the French Court that really saved Asgill's life. It would be most helpful if those points could be considered. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you didn't feed her notion that the two of you are being abused. YoPienso (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if it looked that way; my intention was only to highlight the points which seemed to be causing concern. And certainly I agree that the tone needs to be dialed down. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A new beginning

Another too-long bloviation about the direction this has gone. Read at your own risk.

The drama continues, regrettably. Much of what I wrote in my collapsed bloviation appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I vacillate between forging onward, or throwing my hands in the air. This should not be so difficult. This article is about George Washington. Ancillary bits and pieces about Huddy being a 'thug' or Ben Franklin's son are irrelevant to this article about George Washington. Personal opinions that George Washington committed "war crimes" are irrelevant to this article about George Washington. Speculation about why a letter didn't appear in the historical record for ages and ages are irrelevant. None of this nonsense belongs in this article, which is about George Washington - unless it is substantiated by reliable, verifiable, sources, that have said as much. Questioning sources is not a blasphemy around here. I don't care how nice the guy is who wrote the article in the historical magazine or whatever. It is irrelevant to this article about George Washington. Heavy-handed umbrage has been taken by editor Arbil44 - Anne - without any overt provocation, only assumptions of slurs. Editor gwhillikers mentioned that you were British - as I recall in the context of the time difference, which rattles the collaboration. He didn't emit some absurd slur against you for being british. I think I can speak for all of us dirty yanks, we don't give one single **** whether someone is British, English, Indonesian, South African, Peloponnesian, or some blend of them all. It is all irrelevant to discussing improvements to this article about George Washington. I haven't even read this entire article - yep, I'm lazy sometimes. Anyone who suggests that this article is a hagiography emits an hilarity however. Can we please confine comments going forward to the proposed edit, and directly, specifically, and only address errors in it, without volumes of all-caps arguments about what dandy folks the editors of the periodical are? Pages and pages and pages and pages of this digressive commentary (raises hand, as I'm as guilty as any, but at least I collapsed by massive bloviation) serves no purpose in improving the article. We don't need to hear from the editor of the periodical. There is zero need. Nobody has challenged his/her/their integrity. There isn't a single word in the pages and pages and pages that suggests that 'the editor of the journal is a biased twit', or however you wish to misinterpret questions about the provenance of information. Argh. Does this require admin intervention? I am loathe to do so (and barely know how to request it anyway). It seems impossible to simply discuss the edits calmy and dispassionately. Arbil44 - Anne - gwhillickers has not performed a unilateral act by pushing the text to article space (i.e. 'adding it to the encyclopedia'). Wikipedia is a living document, there is no 'done' here. When material has been discussed at length (oh boy at what length, the Mississippi river is in danger), it is not a horrible offense to anyone that the material at least be in the article, even if imperfect, while we are still working on it. There is nothing in it that biasedly impugns Washington or Asgill. If there are technical errors in it, then please - just take the sentence that has the error, and change it so that it is no longer in error. We don't need to know anything else. The article is written for non-experts. Domskirk - the problem - as indirectly revealed by arbil44 - is that, if she says that the version you posted is essentially the exact wording from the journal, then we can't present it as other than a quote from the journal. We are required to interpret sources for accurate presentation - not to reproduce sources verbatim without identifying them as word-for-word quotes. If I've misunderstood arbil44's statement - entirely possible - please correct me. I so wish this could be address employing CCCC, if I may be forgiven. Once again, I bloviate, and I have no coffee beans to fall back upon at this moment. Please - lets work together - stop the personalizations, both directed inward and outward - assume good faith from our fellow editors - and get this done? Damnit, I'm going to collapse this too. The page has gone beyond unwieldy, and I'm not helping, even as I try to steer us away from the rocks.

The confusion about which letter is relevant, and which details are relevant, has gone on too long. I request that someone (more informed than I am), place below, a bulleted list of the details of the Asgill affair that pertain to Washington. No speculative information. No personal information. No assuming motives. and only directly relevant information, whether Huddy was a thug is 100% immaterial (and unverifiable) and has no place in what goes into this article - or even on this talk page.

With a bulleted list, along with it can be corrections. I am fairly sure I am not alone in confusion over what is what, and we can leave blame for that elsewhere. Here's an example:

1. George Washington wrote a letter on May 18, 1782. Is this date correct?
   1. (here goeth the correct date if it is wrong):
2. The letter was missing for a long time. Why was it missing? How was it found?
   1. We don't know exactly how long it was missing, and we don't know how it was found.
3. Is Asgill's eighteen page letter - which was also missing? - relevant to this entry in this article about GW?
   1. unless I'm mistaken, arbill44 - Anne - says it is irrelevant, so we can leave out all details surrounding it, and as well, dismiss any discussion of it from our collaborations here.
4. 'Threw caution to the wind' - is this a quote from the periodical that published its findings?
   1. Yes, therefore it must be identified in quotes within article space, since it's not our work - otherwise it's effectively pliagiarism
5. and on and on.

But if we keep it as bullet points, and keep ALL ANCILLARY DISCUSSION OUT OF IT, we may be able to distill something usable.

I like gwhilliker's version (and apologies to you and arbill44 - Anne - as I'm routinely unsure of the correct spelling of your respective usernames) - but per Anne, it includes discussion of Asgill's letter, which is immaterial to this article. Again, if I'm wrong, just say I'm wrong - we don't need lots of secondary discussion unrelated to article improvement.

So, please - I implore (while not following my own advice) - details: terse. corrections: succinct. Leave out personalizations. Leave out lengthy discourse on past historical inquiry unrelated to this. Just the facts. We can build an entry from there.

Naturally, I really liked my version more, because I consider myself a rhetorical genius with no peer. That, and $1.50, will buy you a snickers bar.

gwhilliker's version in article space isn't 'done', we can still revise and amend it. Publishing it now violates no policy, and improves the article, even if it isn't 100% correct yet.

I will now shut up. Anastrophe (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe I believe I sorted it out earlier today and summarized in this post. To re-summarize: GW wrote to Gen. Hazen on May 18 giving permission to choose a "conditional" POW for execution as there were no "non-conditional" POWs to be found. The letter is here and was never "lost". However as Henriques explains in "George Jury and Executioner: That time General Washington proposed to execute an innocent man", American History. Feb 2020, Vol. 54 Issue 6, when GW told his aides to send documentation re the Asgill Affair to be published in The New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine that single letter was inexplicably not included. That's all. Victoria (tk) 02:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Where is that letter now? YoPienso (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Victoriaearle, I appreciate it. Yes indeed, it is easy for bits and pieces of this to get lost in the crashing waves of text here, my own contribution to it stipulated. Anastrophe (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I had the wrong date, meant May 18. Have fixed that.

It's in this collection in the Library of Congress. The issue is that for some reason (his secretary Humphreys didn't pass it to the press, the press lost it, or any other of a multitude of reasons) that particular letter was not part of the batch published by the press. Victoria (tk) 03:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't commented since long ago since too many cooks ruins a dinner, but I have been "following" the discussion. I still believe a better place for it is in Military career of George Washington or at most George Washington in the American Revolution. But if it is included here, I like the Compromise proposal. It provides context for the situation, how the situation unfolded and was eventually resolved. It appears neutral, Washington (or anyone else) is neither villain or hero. It omits any opinions about why anything was done.

I think the whole topic about missing letters, what letters were omitted, when they were discovered, when they were published, etc. is historical trivia. This trivia only becomes something more if you add opinion into the mix. The claim that "everything" about this episode has been "totally rewritten" by this major discovery is (imo) absurd. An interesting tidbit of history was discovered by a local historical society - nothing more. If a major new insight into history has been made, it will be all over significant historical journals (British and American). If it does there will be RS for this and its weight.   // Timothy :: talk  03:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (though I'm not crazy about mentioning it all in this article). See this post I made earlier today. If it's important we'll have lots of secondary sources to choose from, but that takes time. Or it might not be important. Regardless, it's not germane to Wikipedia. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

// agree.   // Timothy :: talk  03:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Until Asgill's letter is made avaialable to the lot of us, we can only guess as to its impact on the numerous contemporary and historical accounts that have transpired over two and a half centuries. The assumption that one letter from a clearly disgruntled and anti-American individual, Asgill, can 'part the ocean' of historical accounts is just plain foolish. Victoria, summary coverage of this issue, since Washington is plainly in the center of it all, belongs in this biography, an article about that man. Washington's concerns, hopes and feelings needs to be clearly delineated in this biography, esp since this seems to be a recent controversial issue that has hit the historical fan. Our summary paragraph treats this in a factual and neutral manner. I regret that Lady Anne has taken such a deep view of these events and the young nation that Britain gave birth to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Other accounts to consider

• Humphreys, David (1859). The conduct of General Washington : respecting the confinement of Capt. Asgill, placed in its true point of light. New York : Printed for the Holland Club.

• Stryker, William S (1883). The capture of the block house at Toms River, New Jersey, March 24, 1782. Trenton, Naar, Day & Naar, printers.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am truly now flummoxed. The Humphreys book, published in 1859, includes the text of the allegedly "missing" letter, which this entire kerfluffle centers on. "You [Hazen] will, therefore, immediately on the receipt of this, designate by lot, for the above purpose, a British Captain, who is an unconditional prisoner, if such as one is in your posession [...]". This is from the "missing" letter. again, published 161 years ago. Where is the coverup? What am I missing here? By turns, editor Arbill44 has said that it is Asgill's letter that has been hidden for 233 years. Okay. Then why is it that the very first, originally submitted addition to this biography made no mention of it - yet by the same turn why is it that editor Arbill44 has repeatedly said that Asgill's letter has 'absolutely nothing to do with' the discussion regarding this entry? None of this makes sense. Two different letters are claimed to have been supressed/hidden/lost. We're told it is Arbill's letter that was hidden for 233 years. But it has 'nothing to do with this'. We are told that it is Washington's letter to Hazen that was held back from publication four years later. But it was hardly supressed, some sort of conspiracy to cover up war crimes, if it was published openly in 1859 - if not before. So where is the controversy? What is the revelation? What in the hell is this whole massive discussion actually about???? Can someone summarize, exactly, what the revelation is that needs to be added to Washington's biography, and can it be done in less than 30,000 words? Anastrophe (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe - I can't do this any more, I really cannot. You and everyone else continue to miss the fact that there were two letters. The first, of 3 May ordered unconditional officers and the second, of 18 May ordered conditional officers. It was the second letter of 18 May which was not included for publication in thee NHG of 16 November 1786. I just cannot go on going round and round in circles saying the same thing over and over again and have to admit to not reading the rest of your post. Have you read my post in response to your book on the subject? I make all the points clearly there. My signature has gone up the creek - sorry about that - have to get to hospital now and will try to sort it out later. Anne 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonably clear. This all hinges on the difference between unconditional and conditional prisoners, and somehow if conditional prisoners are executed, that alone is a violation of Article 14 of the Yorktown capitulation. I honestly don't know why there is such a distinction, a hanging is a hanging, and article 14 only says "No article of capitulation to be infringed on pretence of reprisals; and if there be any doubtful expressions in it, they are to be interpreted according to the common meaning and acceptation of the words.". Clear as mud. So hanging unconditional prisoners was no problemo. Conditional, muy problemo. And this is the massive 'coverup' - even though........nobody was hanged. Okay. I get it. This whole thing is senseless, we don't know why Washington's second letter wasn't included - there is no provenance to attest to the 'why'. We can't say it was a coverup of a war crime absent proof that it was a coverup. Yeah. I give up. this is a massive mountain built from a molehill, a historical footnote turned into a cause celebre. Blech. Bon chance those who wish to forge on - I'm too stupid to sort this out. Anastrophe (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I asked Dormskirk to C&P this but he won't, so here goes - was on my talk page, now here.

Dormskirk, I will not be speaking to Gwillhickers again. It is too stressful. The point he is totally and completely missing (in addition to his inaccurate take on historical events) is that everything ever written about The Asgill Affair has been overtaken by events and The Asgill Affair has now been re-written in the Journal of December 2019. It is the only reference required for his paragraph on the GW page. He hasn't even listed it as a source!! Besides, we have objected, all along, that he insists on including GW's letter of 13 November 1782, which is not only pointless (why say you want someone well treated when you are giving them a passport to leave the US) but it is totally and completely irrelevant to the matters under discussion. We have also said that, if he is going to insist on including that, then we also insist on all the irrelevant stuff about how Asgill was actually treated to be included. I don't want either to be included because we are supposed to be discussing the totally new revelations that (a) Washington ordered that conditional officerS were to draw the lots and (b) Four years later failed to include that letter for publication. Who on earth cannot draw from that that Washington was covering up his lawbreaking orders? Some form of words at the end needs to be included and even one of the posters agreed to an inclusion, that a cover up took place and, consequently, history has been skewed. Now it has disappeared. I am totally baffled why nobody, yet, has grasped the nub of the matter. I am floored that I am still having to point out what this discussion is all about. I am not going to speak to Gwillhickers, so could you copy and paste this message, making it clear that it is me saying this, not you, His learned tomes he gives as sources may as well be binned - the whole saga has been re-written? (what do you think of my new 'signature'!!) Anne 07:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Anne 08:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

An unconditional prisoner = one who can be hanged and who is not subject to protection by the 14th Article - GW's letter of 3 May did not violate any treaty - hence it was submitted for publication

A conditional prisoner = one protected by the 14th Article - GW's letter of 18 May violated this treaty, signed by him, hence why it was not submitted for publication.

After miles and miles of typing, all other aspects of my life having gone to pot, do editors finally know what this discussion is about? I have been stressing 'conditional' and 'unconditional' from the outset, assuming editors would know the difference, or, if not, find out. Anne (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The above post (now removed by Timothy Blue), isn't worthy of a response - but it has already been sent to the Editor at LancasterHistory for him to deal with. In the meantime, other things which nobody here acknowledges as the truth, and ignores what they are told. I am sure YoPienso would have done as requested, but I am saving them the time now:

Morning YoPienso, Could you please tell Gwillhickers that there is a photograph of me at Huddy's grave on my userpage (I went to Colts Neck and Toms River and went to the Huddy Memorial Park there, which is very beautiful - how on earth could my US research have been complete if I did not include Huddy?) I can post the email I received from Huddy's descendant describing him in very unflattering terms. I know emails are not proof, and I wouldn't post her email address of course. And it might take me a while to find her emails because right now I cannot remember her name in order to search for it! Anne 06:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, Anne, I won't. Sorry, but that kind of snubbing behavior isn't acceptable here at Wikipedia or in the real world. Anyway, you have effectively told him yourself by posting your request here. It's regrettable that you so readily take and give offense. Please see WP:CIVIL; it will make your experience here more pleasant. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Insert : @Yopienso and Arbil44: Yopienso, thanks for your words, and also, your inquiries into Huddy. Anne, I know you're not speaking to me, but let me say I've seen the picture. The reference to Huddy being a "thug", a point made with capital letters, made it hard to believe his grave had been visited by you, but your reasons are your own. Several sources say Huddy was admired as a patriot leader, yet I can believe that he was something of a hard case. I don't see, however, where his execution should be considered any less than anyone else who met such a fate. I can only hope that was not your reason for mentioning his character. Asgill was going to be hung in retaliation for Huddy's execution, so in that context we mention his name, and who he was, a popular patriot leader. It's understood that this was a view shared by American patriots. I don't think it's necessary that we mention that the British didn't think he was popular. I will add a touch of neutrality to the edit in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Found it! From Laura Buckner, Huddy's descendant: "My own understanding of Joshua Huddy is that he was a scoundrel and rebel from an early age. Originally of Quaker heritage, the church threw him out for unacceptable behaviour and he was a tyrant with his second wife and her children. While he is viewed as a rather obscure hero in the annals of the Revolutionary War, had he lived beyond the war he may well have been hanged for some other reason based on his attitude and behaviours. A true "black sheep" in his own family!" I had hoped to be able to meet her at Huddy's grave (would have been a good photo-op), but she lives in Belgium, so that didn't work out. In the interests of impartiality, please feel free to post this too. Anne 07:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've looked Huddy up on the web and found that while he was admired as a warrior and successful as a privateer, he was indeed rough (to put it mildly) in civilian life. YoPienso (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "popular" is therefore POV, not synonymous with the name of Joshua Huddy, and therefore does not belong in the article on the GW page. Anne (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne, I removed my post shortly after posting it, before anyone had commented after deciding I didn't want to be a part of the discussion (as per my edit summary). I'm still reading, just don't want to be a part of the discussion. I'm very sorry we disagree about the significance of this and I am sincerely sorry if there are hard feelings because of the discussion here. It would be wonderful if the editor of Lancaster History replies here. I'd love to hear their view on the subject (and I am open to changing my mind, we're all still learning). I'd also love to know if any other journals are planning to publish anything about this and they would probably know. If they do respond, please ping me so I know about the reply. Finally, you mentioned above you were going to the hospital, so I wish you well. I know too well about being in the hospital and health problems. Best wishes   // Timothy :: talk  15:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between your deleted post (which shocked and appalled me and went straight to Lancaster) and this one. I cannot say I have much to say to you, all the same, other than I should imagine that the slurs you hurled at LancasterHistory is likely to produce a response. I'm not aware that they are on Wikipedia, so lets see how they handle this. They are already aware of previous slurs hurled their way. Take a look at their website and decide if they look like the rubbish outfit you implied [1] Yes, Victoriaearle has already posted another article, published this month, which supports both the Journal and my contentions. [2] (The author is writing, having read the Journal) [3]. That Lancaster were brave enough to publish a letter, deliberately hidden for 233 years, required extensive legal advice on both sides of the Atlantic, and is consequently part of their blurb. It has confused matters here terribly because Asgill's letter has nothing to do with the matter in hand. They didn't use Washington's hidden letter as part of that blurb, otherwise it would have spoilt the main event, Asgill's letter. I have no idea how to ping, so maybe someone else will do so. Anne (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw YoPienso, when I am the only person here (apart from Dormskirk, who now only posts from time to time) trying to make Wikipedia truthful, neutral and non-biased, and everyone here is against me, my efforts, the Journal and every aspect of what I am trying to do, can you wonder that I am defensive? I am a lone voice and I feel like the lamb which has gone to the slaughter. Why would I want to post to someone who sarcasticlly calls me "Lady Anne" now (which wouldn't have happened had you not told me how to change my username)? Besides, it would seem that nobody has yet realised what this long long thread is actually about and doesn't even know what 'conditional' and 'unconditional' actually means. Nor can they comprehend that all previous accounts can be consigned to the rubbish bin because new facts have emerged which makes old accounts irrelevant now. I am up a tree without a paddle or a lifeguard in sight. Anne (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors on this article have been remarkably patient with you, Anne, no doubt in deference to your age, but at some point you must stop making defensive and offensive comments. You've been engaging in what Wikipedia calls Tendentious editing; on your talk page I've shared links to Righting great wrongs and Seeing editing as being about taking sides. Please avail yourself of their guidance.

Wikipedia is democratic, not aristocratic; no one's expected to do another's bidding. We cordially invite you to join the project as one among equals, displaying mutual respect.

A person of your intelligence and talents can learn to write simply, without undue emotion. Please drop the expostulations and express your ideas briefly and courteously. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

YoPienso, Dormskirk posted an initial short paragraph to the GW page, which was removed within hours. A replacement has been inserted there which does not meet either historically correct criteria, nor barely touch on what this edit is supposed to be about. It did not meet the consensus criteria but was inserted anyway. Nobody here, except perhaps now the poster who made that very very long post, (Astrophie?) understands even the basics of what happened, in December 2019, which has transformed the way history has been recorded. The irony is that that source isn't even mentioned! You say I am abusing people here, and you have reported me, but I am fighting this fight almost entirely alone and I am a nervous wreck with the pressure this is putting me under. Tell me - do I fight on alone and become ill with the slurs, like the sarcastic "Lady Anne" for instance, in the hope that the day will come when people know what it is we are talking about? Or do I walk away, leaving an unacceptable edit on the GW page, but save my sanity, because you have no idea what it is like and I'm not sure you will appreciate what I am trying to say here. I am 1 against many, and it is a really really horrible position to be in. It has been said that I am the one with the technical knowledge, and yet nobody is either reading or understanding what I have been saying. If I wasn't a Libran I wouldn't give a damn whether wikipedia is truthful, neutral and unbiased. Anne (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I have now been reported, and I guess that will end up with me being banned, I guess I am left with no option but to walk away, beccause I don't want to be banned for being abusive when it has felt the other way round. I no longer have the strength to take part in any kind of tribunal, so don't you think it is best that the technical advisor leaves you to it, and goes? With the exception, that if I get something in from Lancaster in response to the abuse hurled at them in the (now deleted) post from Thomas Blue, I will see about posting it here - maybe. Anne (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne, I never "hurled" any "abuse" at Lancaster. I never implied they are a "rubbish outfit". I would never do that.   // Timothy :: talk  19:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone's reported you, Anne, and if they do, they have to leave a message on your talk page. But, if you continue in this tendentious vein, someone might request help at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). But that is totally unnecessary. I beg you to read Righting great wrongs and Seeing editing as being about taking sides. This is the third time I've pointed you to information that can end your agony and give you pleasure in collaborating with your fellow editors at Wikipedia. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe - a small breakthrough

Anastrophe, I am addressing you here because, as I've said before, I do believe that you and I could work our way through this. It is bringing me down terribly that so many here do not understand what this is supposed to be about. The main thing is that The Asgill Affair has been re-written (in some cases in very obscure ways, which may not be apparent to those not familiar with the case). I have had a response from Mike Abel, the Editor of the Lancaster Journal (in particular about Thomas Blue's, now deleted, post earlier today), and he has (at least initially) suggested to me that perhaps the way forward might be to link a low res pdf. of the Journal here. There are two immediate problems. Firstly pdf. docs can only be linked externally, and I don't run my own website. Secondly, this document mustn't be online. Really, the only way would be for me to email it to you and for you to forward it on, at your discretion. But how does one obtain a cast iron guarantee, though, that recipients would not then find a way of putting it online? This has been precluded by the lawyers because of weird legalities in the UK, amongst other things. It is pretty mega to publish a letter which has been hidden for 233 years - not that that letter has anything to do with the current matters under consideration. I'm pretty scared about this suggestion from Mike, because I am faffing about in the enemy camp here, and how can one trust the enemy? Yes, I am British, and all the posters here are Americans. I, personally, feel I am fighting the Revolution all over again, all by myself! Mike has been looking at the posts on Wikipedia and his response is:

"Too many of the arguers know too little about the facts they are arguing. They are still confused by this missing letter and that left-out letter". Anne (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

email

Hi Anne - don't send the document in any digital format - to me or anyone. The legalities are clear enough to preclude doing so. There are no cast iron guarantees in the digital world. The minute a link were posted here, the pdf would be public, and there would be no control after that. So - again, don't even think of posting it.

Indeed, many of us don't know all the facts we are arguing. We can only go by the historical record - in which Washington's decision to include conditional prisoners in the lot is well known.

I wrote a lengthy message that hit an edit conflict just as you posted this. I'll post that now. Anastrophe (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(written before the above) My optimism gets the best of me, and I reply here again. Anne, I see no evidence that you've been reported. It is extremely unlikely that you would be banned - that sort of action is very formal and is only done in the most extreme cases and after very thorough investigation and discussion. At worst you may be 'sanctioned', and since this is a digital world we're in, there won't be a gibbet posted outside your window in the real world.

As I and others have repeated over and over, we respect and value your expertise in this matter. It's the delivery that is lacking, and that is not uncommon with those who are new to wikipedia - young or old, technically adept or bereft. Within the world of wikipedia, the expectation is that discussion and negotiations will be governed by manners and decorum akin to a United Nations gathering. If someone says something intemperate, we are expected to avoid responding in kind. We are all supposed to be "above" that sort of behavior. As we are all human beings, and thus explicitly flawed, we often fail at that. Your passion for this subject is remarkable, and fascinating - but it also drives conflict. No, you aren't the only person here whose passions have gotten in the way of calm negotiation.

However, you should not be putting the silliness of a Wikipedia dispute ahead of your health. Believe me, I know the temptation to do so, on the rare occasions I've had the flu - 'hey, i have some free time, I'll go work on Wikipedia!'. Enjoy your tea, get a good night's sleep, watch some Monty Python - those things are more important than this dispute.

Some things I would implore you to consider:

1. Wikipedia is a living document, it will never be 'finished'.
2. If something inaccurate is in the encyclopedia, it will be corrected.
3. But unless the information is defamatory, vulgar, etc, there is no hurry to fix it.
4. We engage in discussion here to try to find the best information to put into the encyclopedia.
5. There are disagreements. This is inevitable.
6. Patience, particularly with those who are not well-schooled in the topic such as myself, is necessary.
7. We don't intentionally play dumb here in order to torture you into repeating yourself.
8. An editor's delivery can set the tone, whether good or bad. It's up to all of us to try to maintain a collegial atmosphere.
9. It is best - by far - not to assume motive in other editors. We are all largely anonymous here, but we're all (flawed) human beings - reminding ourselves of that shared humanity can help calm the waters. This is the foundation of Wikipedia's Assume good faith credo. Please read it. It is exceedingly important.
10. Your health, your wellbeing, should be a higher priority than this matter. I understand your rage at times - but that rage doesn't hurt us, it hurts you.
11. In several hundred million years, the Sun will go supernova and turn the earth into ash. I've set aside a few cans of baked-beans in preparation, until then, I'll continue to enjoy my daily life.
12. I seem to be losing the thread.

Now, my standard bloviations complete, I would ask you to do me - and the other editors, all peers - a favor and write _your_ version of a proposed entry into this article. Keep in mind, this is George Washington's biography - it needs to be kept within that context. Keep in mind, this all took place hundreds of years ago - it will not affect the current presidential election cycle here in the states. As important as this matter is to you, it is a footnote in the entirety of George Washington's life, career, and service. It potentially puts Washington in a bad light - his life as Planter far outweighs this matter in showing that Washington was imperfect, as we all are. You needn't add the references formally, that can be dealt with when it goes to article space, just put a parenthetical indicating which source it is.

I'll paste here example text as to how to present it as a 'quote', to change it visually to highlight that this is a proposed version. Please - keep it brief, again with the points above I've made in mind. When you edit to do your writing, you'll see the tags around the example - just replace the text with your version. And try to keep it about as many lines as the ipsum lorem - eight, ten, maximum. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I love your post Anastrophe - I feel sure that, were we able to go to a hostelry together, we'd have a really really good evening together. I will think about your proposal tomorrow, but it worries me already because Dormskirk's submission already reflects exactly (a mirror image) of what is in the Journal. It will be bad if I simply submit Dormskik's latest submission. again, won't it?!!!!

I thought YoPienso had reported me - I felt sick with worry. Anne (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I now feel I can trust you implicitly. I also trust Cordless Larry implicitly, who has already got a copy of the Journal (I especially trust Dormskirk, but he is not emailable). Do you not think that, given I am happy to do so, the best answer would be for me to email the pdf. doc to you? You would then be in a position to assure everyone else that what I say is true? If I did so, could this thread be closed on a temporary basis, to give us all a breather - me in particular since I am on my own? Anne (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the offer, but I do not want a copy of it. It isn't the truth of the matter that is in question, it is how it is presented within the encyclopedia that matters. If a neutrally worded version can be generated, keeping it within the confines of its overall notability within George Washington's life and service, and without it containing overt editorializing about assumed motivations Washington may or may not have had, and - of course - is historically accurate in its details - then the matter can be put to rest. That's it - that's the only issue. It needs to be historically accurate, brief, and without editorializing. If a brief quote on the factual details is needed in it, we must identify it, such as "In its Journal, the Lancaster County Historical Society said (in quotes) "lorem ipsum dolor [...]".

I agree, a breather may be the best course of action. We should all just close this tab for a few days. I'm pretty sure George Washington and Charles Asgill will still be dead when we return, so there is no hurry. Anastrophe (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"(a mirror image)" - and that's a significant problem. We can't publish in the encyclopedia a source's text without explicitly identifying it as a quote - anything less becomes pliagiarism. It is "okay" to use quotes from the source - but it is generally preferred that we interpret what the source says, and put it into encyclopaedic wording and tenor. Text such as "threw caution to the wind" as the original says is not encyclopaedic tenor, it is editorializing. So we don't use those words unless they are quoted, and unless they are materially important to the entry - and "threw caution to the wind" isn't materially important to the facts. Thus why I've asked you to distill your knowledge into a brief capsule, not drawing directly from what has been published, but instead neutrally worded narrative of the matter, in brief - because, as I've stressed over and over, in a dispassionate review, the revelations here are but a footnote to Washington's history. They aren't a footnote to your history - but they are to Washington's biography. It is an interesting footnote, and inclusion of a brief mention is welcome. But we have to keep things appropriately proportioned. But - don't fret about writing it now, only when you have had your tea, and most importantly, only after watching some Monty Python - they'll help put it all in perspective. Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As a writer I sometimes choose really lousy terminology, but that aside I take on board what you say. It is nearly 9pm here and I need more than this evening off. I will work something out, but I badly need a few days off now. Will, you in return, temporarily close down this discussion? All the notifications I asm getting, from this and other pages, is completely taking over my life. Anne (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes - take some time off, as before, they'll still be dead when we get back. There's no explicit way to temporarily close down the discussion. The best we can ask is that our peers here agree that Washington and Asgill are dead, and they will still be dead after a respite from the discussion, so we can just...stop...discussing... for a while. I will refrain from posting here for some interval, and I ask the other editors here to do in-kind - no harm will obtain from a break. Cheers to everyone. Anastrophe (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe Your efforts and sentiment here are appreciated, as are your words about neutrality and encyclopedic writing, but at this point we need to do more than just take a break, only to come back to another prolonged discussion. I feel that most of the discussion hasn't been conducted in terms of reliable sources. That needs to be understood not just by us but by everyone before we go any further. I've made efforts to include as many as is possible, including the introduction of the Humphreys account, and The capture of the block house at Toms River, where Huddy was captured. Hoping they will help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe, in chronological order, since last posting. Firstly, Mike Abel and I had a lot of contact on 17 Feb, and one of his comments was:

“How can any of these editors suggest changes if they haven't done the research? The American History and Mount Vernon articles aren't helping. They are both glossing over the details”

These were the references provided by Gwillhickers, who, additionally, put up his version of the piece before consensus was reached, which I thought was the purpose of this exercise?

Mike has agreed that the following email address may be shown here so that people wanting further clarity may contact him. Email: journal@lancasterhistory.org

During the course of producing the Journal one historian in the UK became peripherally involved on some of the minutia – facts being checked and double-checked. One of the things which became highlighted by that person was that the Humphreys account turned out not to be a totally faithful representation of what had been published in “The New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine”. “The Humphreys account” has been regarded as the ‘bible’ on these events, as much as the “Washington Papers” of course (which were, as we now know, missing one of those Papers), and is readily available, whereas TNHGATCM is (I believe) only available on microfiche. Can you see what I am driving at? This Humphreys document has, effectively, been the third aspect to skew history. To which, of course must be added that Washington’s ‘withheld letter’ and Asgill’s ‘missing letter’, together makes for a trio which have travelled together, for well over two centuries, conspiring to ensure that we all ended up with an ‘unfaithful’ record of what actually happened. If these facts were not so distressing to me, personally, because Asgill has been labelled a liar for never denying he was badly treated, and a cad for failing to thank Washington for his very courteous letter releasing him on parole, then I would regard this particular ‘trio’ as simply a fascinating adjunct to history. There is only one account I have ever read, by Ambrose E. Vanderpoel (a long standing native of Chatham, NJ - his ancestors were certainly there in 1782), who really really tries to give Asgill a fair hearing – you can see he tries so hard to give a good account of him, but even he, somewhat reluctantly, comes to the conclusion that, yes, Asgill was a cad and a liar. Katherine Mayo goes so far as to ask the rhetorical question “why on earth did he never refute the accusations against him” (or words to that effect)! Both authors are referring to the man who refused to be captured, and released from the gallows, by the British (who arrested him when out riding for exercise in Chatham, but he would not go with them), and the man who, during the war, tenderly aided a Patriot (enemy) colonel who had been injured in battle. Perhaps Colonel Gregory was the ancestor of one of the editors here? I’m afraid (sorry) I cannot resist saying “Yes, what a bastard he was”!

The Journal has been accused of not being peer reviewed (that post by Thomas Blue was deleted). Just a very few of the early reviews are on my userpage. Separately I have 14 A4 pages of copied emails from people who have (mainly) read it, or at the very least, seen it to browse through before actually reading it. It is unfair to judge the Journal so negatively (as some have called it into question}, without at the very least reading the reviews readily available to all wikipedians.

Anne (prepared for upload, on 17 February 2020) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Anastrophe, I was extremely distressed (not with you since it was probably me who inadvertently deleted your signature – something entirely possible in fact – I often highlight vast swathes of stuff, none of which was intended for deletion – no idea how that happens) that the ‘good faith’ terms of our agreement were broken within a couple of hours, and more pings continued to come into my email box. Naturally I didn’t bother reading the content (I had already begun working immediately that same night), but the Journal Editor did. I was in hospital that morning, for a procedure, and I would not have asked for this break had I not needed it. And I had been in panic mode too, believing that YoPienso had reported ‘me’ as the abuser (DormskirK’s comment to me confirms that he too considered that I had been attacked) and that I would end up being banned. WikiCommons is always threatening to ban me, even when they are in the wrong. I was even threatened with being banned for letting my long-dead father use my account, and on another occasion told I would be banned “instantly and without warning” if I ever got another internal link wrong, so I am very nervous when online here. Wikipedia ethos is “guilty until proven innocent” – banned, or vast numbers of pages deleted without consultation or warning (that happened to me too) - in every aspect of the way members are treated. I have even been branded, like cattle, with the ‘COI badge of dishonour’, which hurts so much. Librans, as I have said before, value justice and balance above all else. I am always neutral in writing encyclopaedic pages (not talk pages, I grant you), yet the COI is burnt into my forehead, and has never been ‘lifted’.

I am sure other editors would present the following differently (I have followed the American date style, but may have failed on some of the spelling - my spell checker is British English), but the following is the best I can offer for a new edit on George Washington’s page. I know that nobody will believe me (that has been clear here from the start), but I’ll say it anyway, I admire your Founding Father (and still do) probably as much as everyone else here. I do not believe that any other man, walking in his shoes, would have acted differently in his dealings with the riots in Monmouth County. I’ve already mentioned my American heritage, and I am proud of it. My American Granny brought me up on her love for her homeland (75 years a British wife/widow and she never lost her American accent)! She was a member of DAR (which essentially means I could be too should I wish):

I have now done as requested, but I will not upload the rest until I have passed it by Mike Abel first, but thought I would let you see the first ‘wave’ now – the rest will follow on Thursday, after I take an ‘actual‘ day off on Wednesday. Edited to add. Mike has now seen it and confirmed that everything is supported in the Journal. I asked him if he could reduce the word count and the lovely man ended up adding an extra word! (after tweaking some of my verbosity)! One of his comments was:

”The event is too complicated to do with much less. You have my best hopes for a calm and fruitful encounter with the Wikians”.

I’m not asking for ‘no replies’ – I am begging for ‘no replies’ - until you have my draft proposal in front of you on Thursday. I am happy with it. Mike is happy with it. It is 100% accurate following new revelations by the Journal. It is longer than you wanted, even with an irrelevant section deleted (the bit about the French demanding that the execution of Asgill be stopped) but I have left it in, in case you decide it helps the general understanding of the overall situation.

9 source documents follow – all of which are relevant to this piece (with or without the 3rd paragraph) – please do not add additional references which, to a greater or lesser extent, have been overtaken by events.

[1] October 18, 1781 Articles of Capitulation, signed in Yorktown [4]

[2] May 3, 1782 letter from Washington to Hazen, requesting unconditional prisoners draw lots [5]

[3] May 18, 1782 letter from Washington to Hazen, requesting conditional prisoners draw lots [6]

[4] May 27, 1782 letter from Hazen to Washington, in which he makes reference to receiving two letters from Washington and informs him that the drawing of lots took place this day [7]

[5] July 29, 1782 letter from Vergennes to Washington, suggesting that Asgill’s life should be spared [8]

[6] November 13, 1782 letter from Washington to Asgill granting him parole to leave America [9]

[7] November 16, 1786 The New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine publishes all, but one, of Washington’s Papers on The Asgill Affair [10]

[8] The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society Vol. 120, NO.3 WINTER 2019 [11]

[9] The following source was introduced by Victoriaearle and I thoroughly recommend it be included since it supports, and reflects, much of what is already in the Journal, above, having come out 2 months later. It could almost be regarded as that pesky peer review needed. February 2020, (title) Washington Came This Close to Executing an Innocent Man [12]

I look forward to meeting up with you on Thursday Anastrophe, and other editors then too. In the meantime I thank all those who have refrained from posting. My email inbox has benefitted greatly, and so have I, but I do need a proper day off tomorrow. Anne (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Extract from p.101-102 - Volume 120, Number 3, Winter 2019 The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society

On their way into the tavern the candidates saw twenty-one mounted dragoons in the courtyard and must have realized why they were there: to arrest the chosen victim. Once they all were settled in a “little Room,” Moses Hazen “with Apologies for his Errand, informed us that it was General Washington’s order that one Captain should be given up.” Hazen then read Washington’s letters of the 3rd and 18th of May that contained those orders. He hoped the officers would choose among themselves, but they would not: “With one voice we refused to have any share in a business which directly violated the terms of the treaty which placed us within General Washington’s power.” Major Gordon argued on behalf of his men that there were many other captains in the army that surrendered at Yorktown, and that they should all be included in the selection. Hazen repeated that his orders were to chose from those in the room. Gordon then stated there was a fourteenth captain who had not yet arrived at the camp at York and asked for the drawing to be postponed. Hazen responded that he was as a servant to his commanding officer, and could not allow even a short delay. {so, the officers did not pick any pieces of paper out of the hats – two other people did so on their behalf). My apologies for misremembering this detail, but as Washington himself says (in a totally different context):

When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.

Too often I have read that Asgill picked the ‘unfortunate lot’ himself and that is the version which sticks in my mind. It goes to show what happens when history is misreported! Just ‘sayin’ - since I cannot switch off and take a day off, so far anyway! I'll be back tomorrow with what you really want to see...Anne (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources or an end to the discussion

Aside from the misguided notion that few of us realize that there are two letters, it has never been made clear what either of these letters are actually supposed to amount to in terms of introducing significant new evidence, or in the refutation of existing evidence. Once again, everyone knew the proposed execution of Asgill was in violation of the Articles of Capitulation, and that Asgill was supposed to hang in retaliation for the execution of Huddy, at the hands of Lippincott. Washington, a signatory of the Articles, obviously knew this, and so did all his military contemporaries, Congress, et al, who convinced him that a hanging was not the way to go. Washington's involvement, such that it was, is not a secret, nor is the fact that Asgill was mistreated and that he wasn't notified of his parole until sometime later. I ask again, what was actually "covered up"? What earth shattering fact other than personal accounts of mistreatment has been withheld all these years? We've heard the claim that a letter from Washington was withheld, an assumption -- there are any number of explanations as to why this letter was never submitted. Even if there was a signed proclamation from Washington that he indeed withheld a letter, that's as far as anyone has been able to carry the ball. All we have is a lot of conjecture on what the "withheld" letter is supposed to amount to, and how the rest of the world has got the historical account all wrong. At this point we need to come up with reliable sources, not biased accounts written by family members and their friends. This letter fiasco has really gone on long enough. This is not a forum to vent false accusations, personal frustrations and complaints about medication, etc. I regret that it has come to this, but more than enough patience has been afforded to Anne, and several times she has been invited, once by me, to come up with a proposal account for the letters -- all I've received in return are insults and false accusations from her. Any proposal about the letters has to be backed up with reliable sources, and since this is obviously a controversial issue, we will need more than one reliable source. The journal is not a reliable source. We also need to see the letters in their entirety, and they only serve as a reference to quotes. If these reasonable expectations can not be met, then we are only spinning our wheels. This prolonged and never ending discussion has overwhelmed the talk page, with no definite solution or proposal in sight, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but the suspense is killing me, so here goes

Proposed re-draft which, if desired, can be reduced in size, especially by removing the 3rd paragraph.

Thank you to all members here who have not posted since asked not to – I’m deeply grateful.

As presented the re-draft amounts to 334 words compared with the present entry of 178 (please hear me out, and don’t groan too loud - I might hear you in England)!

If the 3rd paragraph is removed (it is actually completely off topic but I have included it in case editors think it aids further understanding) the word count comes to 269 = 91 more words than at present. I am notoriously ‘wordy’ (bad choice asking me to do the writing Anastrophe!) so perhaps editors can help me by finding 91 unnecessary words?

I have deliberately kept to 4 paragraphs to make it easier to know where to delete, if wished, but of course the entirety can easily be merged into one paragraph.

By 1782 Washington was facing many challenges, not least was the mounting discontent in Monmouth County, NJ, as a result of the retaliatory murders taking place between the Patriots and Loyalists. On April 12, 1782 the Patriot, Captain Joshua Huddy, was hanged by the Loyalists, on the orders of William Franklin. Retribution was demanded and Washington had to take action. On May 3, 1782 [2] he wrote to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, PA, telling him to find unconditional British officers (those not protected by any treaty), of equal rank, amongst the Prisoners of War, to suffer death. [96 words]

Failing to find any unconditional prisoners, on May 18 [3], Washington countermanded his orders in a letter to Hazen directing him to select conditional officers as well (conditional officers were protected by treaty). Washington’s orders thus violated the Articles of Capitulation [1] which Washington himself had signed. The 14th article protected prisoners from reprisals. On May 27, 1782, 13 conditional British officers were assembled at the Black Bear Inn, Lancaster; lots were drawn, and twenty-year-old Charles Asgill, the youngest present, was chosen to be hanged [4]. [83 words]

During the six months Asgill was imprisoned in Chatham, NJ, awaiting execution, the French Court became uneasy and their Foreign Minister, comte de Vergennes, wrote, on the King’s demand, to Washington [5] requesting him to release the British prisoner. This Washington did, after consultation with Congress. In his letter of November 13, 1782, releasing Asgill on parole [6], Washington said that he had wished him no harm. [65 words]

Four years later, in 1786, Washington was moved to publish his papers on The Asgill Affair, following mounting rumors in Europe, and America, that Asgill had been mistreated. These papers were published in the New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on November 16, 1786 [7]. However, one important letter was withheld – the one Washington wrote to Hazen on May 18, 1782, directing that conditional prisoners be selected. [68 words]

[My own view is that this is not complete without the following remark, however I fully expect it to be rejected]. All subsequent accounts of these events were denied the knowledge that a letter had been ‘withheld’. This is newly discovered evidence in [The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society Vol. 120, NO.3 WINTER 2019] [8][9] [22 words excluding the name of the publication which can simply be linked]

[note 1: for editors’ benefit, every account of Asgill’s age varies between 17-19 and not even his mother got it right in her letter to the French Court (which is at the bottom of the link to the Vergennes letter). Asgill himself doesn’t seem to know how old he was either, because he does not give his correct age in his letter of December 20, 1786, which he had hoped would be published. His 20th birthday was in April 1782, the month before the drawing of lots. I’ve no idea why all these discrepancies occurred, but these are facts, and the Journal is, to my knowledge, the only correct account regarding his age. Didn’t people bother knowing their age back then, when life expectancy was much less than today?].

[note 2: for editors’ benefit, I would appreciate it if the word “popular” is not used as an adjective to describe Huddy – it is totally neutral without that word. I have already told you what his descendant had to say about him and YoPienso has independently confirmed that to be the case. Nobody is denying he was an effective, hard-working and loyal servant to Washington (and, of course, he should never have been murdered, but nor should Philip White [Loyalist] before him), but “popular” is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. My edit contains no personal reference regarding Asgill’s character, so none should be included for Huddy].

[note 3: for editors’ benefit, I do insist that the reference to Huddy’s murder being on the orders of William Franklin not be changed to any other name. William Franklin ordered Huddy’s murder because the Loyalist, Philip White, had been murdered first. That is the end of the matter].

If this edit is finally fine tuned, to the satisfaction of editors, please may I request that Anastrophe be the editor to upload it to the George Washington page? This, to me, is extremely important please.

I’d be grateful if you could remember that the British negotiating team consists of one old woman (who doesn’t know an algorithm from a bout of arthritis) – whereas that old woman is in standoff with a whip-smart opposing American team of, what, 10 (?) (who nevertheless do not know about the matter in hand). The Asgill Affair was a great burden to Washington, and he came perilously close to losing the support of his allies, the French, and alienating the whole of Europe (just as America was emerging as a new nation). The whole of Europe was up in arms, and he was still fighting his corner on it all four years later. Because you guys have never heard of any of this before, doesn’t mean it wasn’t very big news on both sides of the Atlantic back then. The real irony is that America has definitely not forgotten Asgill (new article out about him just this month) – in Britain they have totally forgotten both him, and his father, who commissioned the golden coach used by the Lord Mayor of London to this day (and they still won’t let me have a go in it, for health and safety reasons I believe)!

So that they don’t get separated in a different thread, here, again, are 9 source documents – all of which are relevant to this piece (with or without the 3rd paragraph) – please do not add additional references which, to a greater or lesser extent, have been overtaken by events. References which apply are, principally, the Journal – it covers everything, and much more, in great detail. But the additional references support what is in the Journal, and are online. No further/additional historical sources would be appropriate because the Journal has, effectively, binned all previously written accounts. There is a whole new “Asgill Affair” out there now.

I will consider I’ve had success if Gwillhickers and I can end up friends – I hate being in barnies with people here, but it seems to happen all too often. Like the guy on the copyright page who was giving me grief, and holding me up, because he didn’t know we were talking about some (other) letters, written 185 years ago, even though that was in the title of the thread. I do get frustrated, I really do!

[1] October 18, 1781 Articles of Capitulation, signed in Yorktown [13]

[2] May 3, 1782 letter from Washington to Hazen, requesting unconditional prisoners draw lots [14]

[3] May 18, 1782 letter from Washington to Hazen, requesting conditional prisoners draw lots [15]

[4] May 27, 1782 letter from Hazen to Washington, in which he makes reference to receiving two letters from Washington and informs him that the drawing of lots took place this day [16]

[5] July 29, 1782 letter from Vergennes to Washington, suggesting that Asgill’s life should be spared [17]

[6] November 13, 1782 letter from Washington to Asgill granting him parole to leave America [18]

[7] November 16, 1786 The New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine publishes all, but one, of Washington’s Papers on The Asgill Affair [19]

[8] The Journal of Lancaster county’s Historical society Vol. 120, NO.3 WINTER 2019 [20]

[9] The following source was introduced by Victoriaearle and I thoroughly recommend it be included since it supports, and reflects, much of what is already in the Journal, above, having come out 2 months later. It could almost be regarded as that pesky peer review needed. February 2020, (title) Washington Came This Close to Executing an Innocent Man [21]

I am too scared to press 'publish changes' for fear of what a mess I may have made of the layout, never mind the content...Anne (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is too long, however the narrative is primarily neutral, and reads nicely, in my opinion. There are more details than before, however they give a clearer picture of the events, and we aren't constrained in disk space here - only by "due weight". I realize the matter is important to you, but the matter of the 'withheld' letter from Asgill is a footnote on a footnote. We have no means to verify if it was withheld, lost, stolen, forgotten etc.. Since Washington in his letters acknowledged receipt of Asgill's letter - and challenged the claims of mistreatment - we're left with a known fact of the existence and acknowledgement of the letter. Likewise the "withholding" of Washington's second letter to Hazen - we have no provenance to how, why, or where it was at the time of W's submission of letters to the newspaper. Saying it was 'withheld' is speculation, which can't be in the biography.

Regarding me being the only one to "upload" it, no - that's not a tenable request. We are all peers here, and attempting to negotiate which editor makes which edits accomplishes nothing of value, since other editors are free to change things as desired (if within policy). Instead, since this is _not_ ready for the article, a proposed revision (which other editors can critique, change, or trim in any way they so please, and we'll eventually find an acceptable reading).

Proposed revision:

By 1782 Washington was facing many challenges, not least the string of retaliatory murders taking place between Patriots and Loyalists. On April 12, 1782 Patriot Captain Joshua Huddy was hanged by Loyalists, on the orders of William Franklin. Retribution was demanded, and on May 3, 1782 [2] Washington wrote to General Moses Hazen, ordering him to find unconditional British officers (those not protected by any treaty) amongst the Prisoners of War, to suffer death.

Failing to find any unconditional prisoners, on May 18 [3], Washington countermanded his orders to Hazen and directed him to select conditional officers—protected by treaty—as well. This order was a violation of the Articles of Capitulation [1] which Washington himself had signed, the 14th article of which protecting prisoners from reprisals. On May 27, 1782, thirteen conditional British officer prisoners were assembled; lots were drawn; and Charles Asgill was chosen to be hanged [4].

During the six months Asgill was imprisoned in Chatham, NJ, awaiting execution, the French Court interceded in the matter, their Foreign Minister—comte de Vergennes—writing to Washington on the King’s demand,[5] requesting him to release the British prisoner. This Washington did, after consultation with Congress. In his letter of November 13, 1782, releasing Asgill on parole [6], Washington stated that he had wished him no harm, and was pleased with this outcome.

Four years later in 1786, following mounting rumors on both sides of the Atlantic that Asgill had been mistreated while held, Washington had his papers published on The Asgill Affair. These papers were published in the New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on November 16, 1786 [7]. Washington's letter to Hazen on May 18, 1782—directing that conditional prisoners be selected—was inexplicably not included.

Washington strongly rebutted the claims of mistreatment (my addition, needs source. This rebuttal is clearly recorded in his letters, and indicates he had read Asgill's letter.)

The absence of either letter did not dramatically alter history. A conditional prisoner was selected, thus implicit that the order was given, and W's reply to Asgill identifies his claims of mistreatment. It's good that the letters were discovered, and is helpful to a fuller accounting of the affair. However, we have no way of knowing if other letters, yet undiscovered, may hold other information that is relevant. We merely need to note that the letter to Hazen wasn't in his his published papers to acknowledge that fact neutrally. Anne, you may disagree with this contention - if so, rebut briefly, please.

While I can't claim high ground in keeping commentary terse, I'm endeavoring so here; I would ask that all involved likewise keep commentary on the proposal TERSE so that we may effect this edit expeditiously. I remain, yr most humble & obedient servant, &c., Anastrophe (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to have to belabour the point yet again but this edit has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Asgill's 'unpublished' letter. The misconception apppears to arise because the Journal makes the point of mentioning it in their blurb (as you would, if you have published after 233 years) but how can I continue to explin that it has no place here? This edit is about a specific letter (violating the treaty) which was excluded from publication when all other letters were included. I also tried to explain that this whole business was a much bigger 'deal' than is being understood here. Because you didn't know about it before - does that make it insignificant? Anne (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The Asgill letter is implicitly related to this matter, because as you note in your proposal, there were rumors of mistreatment. However, I did not mention the letter in the proposed text - and it is the proposed text which is under discussion. Absent an editor adding mention of Asgill's letter to the proposed text, it is a non-issue. Again, the letter to hazen was not "excluded" from publication. That's an assumption of motive. Do you have a letter from a contemporary of these events that states that washington explicitly excluded the letter? Absent that, another non-issue. It is not necessary to belabor the Asgill letter, if it is not in the proposed text.Anastrophe (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I am stumped. When someone hides/fails to submit for publishing, a letter portraying themselves breaking a solemn treaty, I wouldn't have thought it difficult to deduce motive. The letter of 3 May was published because no apparent crime had been committed. Isn't is 'strange', to put it mildly, that the letter of 18 May wasn't published? That was the only letter, of all of them, not to be published. I tried to be friendly and even appreciative in my post above today. This terse is fine, if that is how it is to be. Anne (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal speculations on motive don't go into articles. Period. We do not express or imply motive within the encyclopedia page unless there is evidence. You can't claim that all of Washington's letters were published - it is impossible to know that.Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any comments or corrections pertaining specifically to the text I proposed? Hopefully not, and other editors can discuss. Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Lancaster checked every single letter regarding the Asgill Affair off - against the entire New Haven Gazette, which is reprinted in the Journal in full. There was one letter left over - the 18 May one. Nobody can have bothered to do that before, hence history has missed this revelation up to now. I will comment on the text when it is in your final format, otherwise I see no point. My text is the correct text! I am afraid that my dinner is now getting somewhat cold. It'll be the end of the day here soon, so it is probably best I leave you to it until tomorrow. Anne (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of further digression: Tell me, please, which letters did Washington choose to burn? You can't say that the 18 May letter is the only letter that wasn't published, because it is impossible to state that others were not published as well. But again - this is a digression. I have proposed text. I will let other editors adjust, condense, expand, or completely toss the proposal. No editor's voice here holds more weight than any others. If the majority of editors here come to an agreement on final text, that text will go in the article. The changes I made make no change to the historical details or accuracy of the text. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source(s) and Conflict of Interest

My only question is what reliable secondary sources are being drawn upon in terms of anything anyone proposes to say about any letters, or any particular POV. So far I see a list of primary sources, links to letters to and from Washington, which are okay for quotes, and such, and of course the Lancaster Journal, authored by obviously biased parties. The History Net account, written by Peter R. Henriques, with a Phd in History is good, esp since it shows Washington trying to find ways to avoid Asgill's hanging. We already have a summary account of the affair itself, sourced by a list of established historians. Also, any statement that says Washington "withheld" the letter will be reverted unless there is more than one reliable source that can substantiate this opinion/POV with facts. The fact that Washington didn't hand over a particular letter doesn't automatically mean he "withheld" it or was was engaged in a "coverup", esp since all the important points have been well known in the first place, and have been for many years. Also, there may be a conflict of interest here, as Anne is clearly trying to promote her own publication, not to mention POV. If anyone attempts to use this so called source as a citation the matter will have to be taken up by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see these comments as particularly helpful, nor do they assume good faith - an accusation of 'promotion' isn't AGF. Nor does it help move forward editing the entry. Haven't we had enough conflict here and haven't these issues been litigated repeatedly before? Can you please comment on my proposed edit? Most of the details can be sourced to secondary sources. I've already covered the distinct problem of implying motive regarding the letter, and that claim will never be in the article, as it cannot be substantiated. Let's also remember, as difficult as it is, that editor Anne is new here. That doesn't excuse bad behavior, however, don't bite the newcomers is equally important to assuming good faith. I see no value in relitigation. That's precisely what has ballooned this page to enormous size, and driven it further and further away from directly addressing article improvement.Anastrophe (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Unlike our new friend, I have never 'bitten' anyone, and have made several attempts to get along with, only to be insulted and accused of saying things I've never said, or even implied. What has primary ballooned the Talk page are the obvious POV attempts, insults and false accusations and a journal article written by an individual who has accused Washington of a "coverup" and of being a "war criminal". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop. Casting more accusations and recriminations - already litigated multiple times - will only reignite the flames, which I suspect is the likely outcome already. If we can't focus strictly on article improvement, then it's time to get administrative oversight. Anastrophe (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers I'm seconding Anastrophe. Please stop and let things drop. It's easy to boost the archive bot and there's really no harm to teaching someone how Wikipedia works. It would be best to be able to do that without mutual recriminations. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not initiate the accusations and recriminations, nor have I resorted to false, or any, accusations other than POV. The contention that the Lancaster Journal, written by Anne, who again, refers to Washington as being involved in a "cover up" and a "war criminal", points to a clear conflict of interest and POV issue. I didn't initiate the hostilities, nor did I ask for any of this. Okay, I'll sit back and see where this goes. Reliable sources please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)