Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet

message: What is your objection to the following edit? 
"In a letter to his mother (Lancaster, 29 May 1782) Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville, 2nd Foot Guards (one of the 13 officers who drew lots) wrote: "We are all at this moment waiting with anxiety to know his fate, we think and hope the confinement and anxiety of mind will be his greatest punishment, every Person in this Town was affected at his . There were more tears shed here the 27th May than ever fell on any occasion."Mayo, Katherine. General Washington's Dilemma. London: Jonathan Cape, 1938. Appendix 2, p. 267 (Appendix 2 is not available in the New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1938 edition, which is the online edition.) 
The Greville letter is 6 pages long, so there is a great deal more to it than the brief quote given above. When the Lancaster Historical Society were researching for their December 2019 journal, they searched high and low in America for Mayo's Appendix II - to no avail.  They were astonished that they could not source it in America. They asked me to scan it and send it over to them since they wanted to cover all bases in doing their research.  The edit in question is not a long edit - is sourced to Katherine Mayo, and is now available on Wikisource.  What is your irritation over this edit? Anne (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Greville's firsthand account of the drawing of lots is a detail aprpos in Henry Francis Greville article and the Asgill Affair article, but not here in my estimation. Drdpw (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For something that has been unavailable to Americans for so long - and since I have first-hand experience of the frustration that caused during research of the Asgill Affair in Lancaster, PA - I think your objection is petty when such a short quote is used.  My main wish is to have the ability to give a link to Appendix II.  There has already been far too much which has been "hidden" and "withheld" from this story, and I am simply trying to make information available to people, that is all.  I would ask you to please revert the edit. Anne (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't keep up with what is happening. First you amend the Gloucester escape plan, then you delete it in total.  When an article is a biography of an individual, surely the purpose must be to show something of that man's character? Asgill was young, so didn't reach America until very late in the war, so all the more reason to include what little can be found. His part in the Gloucester fiasco has been recorded in the Bath Chronicle.  Other editors use newspaper reports, so why not this account?  Do you have an agenda to ensure Asgill's character is obliterated?  Just a service number - nothing about the man himself? Anne (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just cannot believe what you want to do to this article.  Are you absolutely determined to prove Asgill was the cad and the liar Washington deemed him to be? Is this your agenda?  His autograph book tells something about HIM, not just an "example of his writing".  How is it that an editor who so dislikes Asgill is not deemed to have a COI too, just as I do because I am related to him? Surely this COI thing works both ways, doesn't it?  Or is it just Great Big America throwing her weight about?  There is clearly not one iota of point in me trying to convey Asgill as a PERSON on HIS WP article.  Not a chance. I will have the last laugh, though, dear Drdpw - when my book is published, and there will not be a damn thing you can do about THAT. But to not permit a missing document (Appendix II) is absolutely biased and unconscionable, when I have EXPLAINED the difficulty this gives researchers in America. Anne (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making unfounded accusations and drawing erroneous conclusions about my edits to this article. Drdpw (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no possible explanation for not permitting both the Autograph book and Appendix II. Unless you WANT to continue to deprive America of yet one more "missing document" when researching the Asgill story?  I have explained until I am blue in the face that the researchers in Lancaster could only source Appendix II by requesting it be sent to them from the UK.  How much sense does that make? At least they KNEW it was missing - someone who doesn't know that, isn't going to look for something they do NOT KNOW is missing.  So, this is another way to skew history. Anne (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Greville's letter