Talk:Josiah Meigs

message: , here we go again.  Anything added by me, which is factually correct, but not to the liking of certain editors, is being deleted. On page 135 of the December 2019 Lancaster Journal, the Editor of that magazine wrote: "Little time elapsed between the publication of Col. Humphrey’s article defending General Washington in the New-Haven Gazette and Captain Asgill’s response, but the editor decided against publishing
Asgill’s response."  That is not the history Washington advocates want to read; rather, they prefer the skewed history which has prevailed for so long. So, as you see, the concerted attack on me continues. Anne (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem here is that the claim that "Two hundred and thirty three years later this was rectified by The Journal of Lancaster county's Historical society" requires a secondary source. Material from the journal can be used to support article content, but not for claims about the journal's own significance. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , my point was that it was the Editor of the Journal who, through his research, not mine, concluded that Meigs deliberately failed to publish Asgill's letter. That was the beginning of history being skewed. Anne (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts of that can be reported, but the interpretation that this amounts to a rectification would need a secondary source (about the significance of the journal). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful input Cordless Larry. Absent a bona fide reason not to from an editor page watcher in the next day or two, I will addreinsert the facts of the incident, with something like:     If another editor implements this action, I suggest utilizing the quote field to record the quotation Anne notes above, as the cited edition of The Journal of Lancaster county's Historical society is behind a paywall. A newspaper publisher skewing the narrative, how shocking! (Feigned surprise). Drdpw (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fwiiw, your suggested edit is good, and accurate. I have no idea why you can't just do it? Cordless Larry has a copy of the Journal, so, should he wish to do so, he can see that the quote is accurate. I C&Pd it directly from the source.  What is not accurate, elsewhere, is that Lippincott ordered Huddy's murder.  He most definitely did not, although he committed the murder. William Franklin ordered the murder. I don't know who wrote the relevant section here William Franklin, but it is pretty right. See also  It would be nice if you could correct that too. It just irks me to see wrong information presented as facts. Anne (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are on board with the revision, I could just implement it; I would, however, like to briefly delay doing so in the interest of consensus building. The Lippincott issue needs to be addressed elsewhere; how to properly describe his part in the affair is not germane to this discussion, as neither he nor his actions in 1782 are mentioned in this article (or need to be). Drdpw (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no secondary sources talking in a major way about Meigs' role vis a vis Asgill, then it shouldn't be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please define what you mean by "talking in a "major way" about his role. Drdpw (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Lancaster Journal isn't a good source, nor a secondary source in this instance. Considering Anne has been trying to force Asgill content into every possible related article, no matter how marginal the event is in that story (see George Washington) it really should be checked against sources talking about Meigs as a whole if this is actually a thing to include per due weight considerations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , please see Lancaster's Mission Statement . Their building and museum is so impressive and the staff meticulous and dedicated - I worked alongside them for six months and the lengths they went to, to get to the truth, left me feeling exhausted on their behalf! They even went on a Field Trip in order to produce their December 2019 edition. It really hurts me to see this sort of comment about them. They are professionals, only seeking the truth, not some sort of Hick backstreet dodgy outfit. It was the most impressive organisation of its kind I have seen anywhere, other than the British Library.  When my book is published by Lexington (Cordless Larry has stated elsewhere that this book will be considered a secondary source) may I ask that you return to this discussion?  I have devoted a paragraph to this issue in my book. However, one detractor doesn't necessarily hold sway, perhaps, much as he loves to malign me in every post he makes? It is of some concern to me that, although on my watch list, I am not being informed of posts here. Anne (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of factually accurate information