Talk:Samuel Fraunces/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Racial identity, article cleanup

I've tried to clean this article up a bit, moving some stuff around, removing some pictures, changing some odd formatting (like excessive quotations in italics!), etc.

I came across this primary source from a man who says he witnessed Washington's farewell to his officers at Fraunces's tavern, he calls him a "negro."

Thus I was interested in this article. The research I've looked at seems to indicate that the racial identity of Fraunces is still up in the air. Kym Rice and the folks at the Fraunces Tavern seem to believe that he was white, hands down, but other research I've seen indicates that he was—and even in the eighteenth century—described as black or mulatto. I have thus added BOTH sides of the historical argument to make the article more NPOV (remember NPOV, guys?), neutral, and informative. The reader can decide based on the evidence we present. (As to the portraits, I've moved the Trumball drawing to the top, as that seems to be better sourced than the portrait—though the portrait is prettier.)

I think it is best to present both sides of the argument and not just push one view here on Wikipedia. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

PS - I think this quote from Jennifer Patton says it best: "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure." Which is why I've presented both sides and had this quote as the kicker-conclusion. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

PPS - Today I redid some of the references, put some things in a better format, added notes for the digressions, fixed some things here and there, noted that the oil portrait is said by the Fraunces Tavern Musem to be "attributed to Samuel Fraunces," and uploaded a better quality version of the Sam Fraunces engraving. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

IT'S A MATTER OF EVIDENCE. If there are 18th-century references to or documentation of Samuel Fraunces having been of mixed racial background, they belong in this article. If there are not, the article should not be skewed to imply that they exist.
==BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) We must go by what the secondary sources say. (2) If you look above, I was drawn here by a primary source, from someone who says he was there, calling a Fraunces "a negro." As I say above, since there is no solid evidence either way, the article should reflect that. Now, I've retained some of your other edits, (such as giving prominence to a painting of dubious provenance) you need to give a little too. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've given quite a bit. As I said in my e-mail, Harris makes an unsupported claim that all parties should be able to agree is erroneous. Still, I left the claim, and added a quote by Rice that counters it. You found the oldest published reference to Fraunces having been black, and I commended you for it. But that reminiscence was published 55 years after the banquet it describes, and some of the author's other details - such as Washington having had his headquarters at "Sam's house" - are contrary to the documentary record.

I found the second-oldest reference to Fraunces having been black, older than any of the references found by Blockson or Cole. It is something to note, but it post-dates the posthumously-published 1860 reminiscences of G.W. Custis, in which the description of a state dinner is easily misunderstood.

My preference is to take this discussion to e-mail. There is plenty of background that you should be aware of, that I will not write here. ==BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to take this discussion to e-mail, as I believe everything should be hashed out in the open. Here's how I view it:

(1) We have Samuel Fraunces, supposedly of the West Indies, of indeterminate heritage

(2) He has the nickname "Black Sam"

(3) His racial make-up is up in the air: black, white, mulatto?

And we have historians, genealogists, and scholars with axes to grind. On one hand we have the descendants of Samuel Fraunces, in the Jim Crow era, who will do anything to whitewash his heritage. On the other hand we have African American historians looking for Black Heroes to place in the Revolutionary era, who will do anything to darken his heritage. We have a Trumbull drawing supposedly passed down and we have a painting that shows up in 1913 with no provenance, a painting even the Fraunces Tavern folks add the word "presumed" to. Thus we have conflicting evidence and conflicting sources. Was Fraunces black? white? mulatto? part-black passing for white? Who knows?

Thus, we must go by what the sources say. They say both. To try and determine conclusively here, on Wikipedia, which race he actually was is not the job of Wikipedia. Scholars say both, we say both. If you want to prove he was a white man, do that in another forum, get it published, and then we put it here.

When I first encountered this page, it was a sloppy mess. With immature bickering on the talk page, with huge block quotes on just one side of the issue (in italics, for some damned reason), and no form to the notes, citations, or links. I have tried to bring some order to the page, and I have tried to present both sides of the issue fairly, evenly, and with good sources.

On the pro-white side we have arcane, older sources; on the pro-black side we have more popular, and newer sources. Which is a pity. Fraunces sounds like the perfect subject for a historical study. I do think Jessica Harris has mistakenly understood Blockson, and I think we should move Blockson as a source up to the intro. I also wish we had more info about Cheryl Janifer Laroche's sources and writings.

But, we have to go by what we have. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to prove that Samuel Fraunces was a white man; I don't want to prove that Samuel Fraunces was a black man. I want what is written about Samuel Fraunces to be based on the best evidence available.

I would hope that that would be the goal of any historian. ==BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And as I'd tried to indicate, unfortunately our best evidence is inconclusive. Look at what we have in the article: Kym S. Rice maintains that no contemporary sources say he was anything but white, yet Cheryl Janifer Laroche (via the The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology) says some records may indicate he was a mulatto. The 1790 census says he was white, but even you admit that's inconclusive. The primary document that drew me here, a supposed witness in his eighties, says he was "a negro man" (and, I have to admit he gets some facts wrong). Mrs. John Fraunces McCurley says he was white; Charles Blockson says he was black.

Sometimes, based on the best evidence, any historian has to give two options and say: we don't know which is correct.

Which is why, as I indicated above, the article should lay out the best evidence on both sides, since that's what our secondary sources say. And, as Jennifer Patton puts it perfectly: "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure." TuckerResearch (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

PS - I removed the offending passage from Jessica B. Harris. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

PPS - Do you have the passage from George Washington Custis’s reminiscences of Washington that Blockson refers to? TuckerResearch (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link to George Washington Parke Custis' recollections (https://books.google.com/books?id=YxdCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA411&lpg=PA411&dq=George+Washington+parke+Custis+%22samuel+fraunces%22&source=bl&ots=si_Z0spC_l&sig=GqCPhiD6OVg93pvDuWo7jXnIPRY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZzt7e4sjLAhVDvoMKHY9OCLAQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=fraunces&f=false). Mentions of Sam Fraunces appear at pages 411 and 420. Blockson is a thorough, reputable scholar. Bjhillis (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mrs McCurley is from another line altogether her assertion was since her husbands middle name was Fraunces he was from Black Sam. Her daughter concurred on this before she passed away. The file is from an old family file when Genealogy and Historical society were together. NO GENEALOGIST can follow the lineage to Sam because it is not there. The museum contends that Samuel Miechen Frances from an entirely different line is Samuel M Fraunces son of Samuel the Tavern keeper. His lineage says otherwise too. I do not have permission to share all the DNA but some is posted publicly on FTDNA Winn surname. Samuel Fraunces Jr was considered drowned of the USS Constitution. It is ridiculous to continue to reference McCurley when her line does not prove in any way to be connected to Samuel Meichen Francis or Samuel Fraunces Jr. GramereC 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Why are these links being removed. If you revert they are removed again. Is this article protected and owned by Boring History Guy? NO. You seem to allow Blockson says but you do not want any of his references included.GramereC 12:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

So now the portrait and picture are there but THIS WHY is you do not want race you lead the article about Fraunces with race as if it was the only thing important. Since the mid-19th century, there has been a dispute over Fraunces's racial identity.[3] According to his 1983 biographer, Kym S. Rice: "During the Revolutionary era, Fraunces was commonly referred to as 'Black Sam.' Some have taken references such as these as an indication that Fraunces was a black man. ...[W]hat is known of his life indicates he was a white man."[1]:147–148 Some 19th- and 20th-century sources described Fraunces as "a negro man" (1838),[4] "swarthy" (1878),[5] "mulatto" (1916),[6] "Negro" (1916),[7] "coloured" (1930),[8] "fastidious old Negro" (1934),[9] and "Haitian Negro" (1962),[10] but most of these date from more than a century after his death.[11] As Rice noted in her Documentary History of Fraunces Tavern (1985): "Other than the appearance of the nickname, there are no known references where Fraunces was described as a black man" during his lifetime.[12]:27

It is NOT an article about his race. That is your soapbox not mine. We push it to the back and up front again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Samuel M. Fraunces

Samuel M. Fraunces was Samuel Fraunces's younger son, and served as co-executor of his father's estate, 1795-96. This is documented in multiple sources, including a Philadelphia newspaper – "All Persons indebted to the ESTATE of SAMUEL FRAUNCES, late of this City, INNKEEPER, deceased, are requested to make payments to the Subscribers... Samuel M. Fraunces, Acting Executor, South Water Street, No. 59." – Gazette of the United States, October 28, 1795.

The son was listed as an "Inn keeper" at "No. 59 South Water-Street" in the 1795 Philadelphia Directory,[1] and the 1796 Philadelphia Directory.[2] His late father's establishment, the Tun Tavern, was located at No. 59 South Water Street.

Samuel M. Fraunces died intestate in 1799, leaving a widow, Susannah, and two young daughters: Susan (b. 17 June 1796) and Hariot (b. 8 September 1797), per Christ Church baptismal records. On July 30, 1799, Susannah Fraunces was named administratrix of her late husband's estate – Letters of Administration, Estate of Samuel M. Fraunces, Philadelphia Will Book K, page 12, No. 265 of 1799.

There may have been a sailor aboard the USS Constitution (launched 1797) named S. Francis who drowned, but there is no evidence that he was Samuel M. Fraunces. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is happening?

An editor named User:GramereC has recently made a huge number of edits (more than 100 by last count!) over just the past few days. This is troubling. Not only are there a huge number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes in this user's edits, some are just plain silly. The "Portraits" section moved to the top? I've counted numerous instances were past events are described in the present tense. I've seen several extraneous spaces between quotation marks and quoted text, or between sentences and citations. Some sentences make no sense. My favorite, thus far, is an original research attack on a secondary source author: "Rice also listed his memberships in groups (such as the Masons) then stated erroneously, membership was restricted to whites only.[3]:27 Who was Prince Hall?" Huh? Or delightful non-sequiturs, like the unsourced: "This narrative is in reference to information passed to Jane Tuers." Says who? And, no, the preceding "narrative" quote has nothing to do with Tuers. I know, I put that quote in.

What's worse is this editor is violating the Wikipedia:No original research policy. There are several footnotes now to primary sources like census records. Assumptions and guesses and interpretations are made here that should not be made on Wikipedia. Like: "It should be noted that Samuel Jr. does not appear as a tic mark unless we count him as the enslaved individual, the rest of the unmarried children are accounted for." Pure, unreferenced speculation. Or: "Samuel Fraunces had a maternal grandfather Oliver, who was noted in the Christ Church Philadelphia baptism records of 31 Nov 1766, as one of Hamilton's Negroes." Says who? It is a standalone primary source, who says this "Oliver Francis" has anything to so with Samuel Fraunces? Or, how about this, an 1880 Florida census record is cited for this sentence: "A closer look at the family reveals that sister and mother lived in Santo Domingo now Hati, as indicated on census records for John Frances, a descendant of Louis Francis and nephew of Fraunces." Who says these people are related to the subject of this article? Nobody. It is out of bounds supposition that violates Wikipedia policy. This is why Wikipedia demands the use of solid, reliable SECONDARY sources and frowns upon the use of primary sources.

This editor has been blocked before (User_talk:GramereC#3RR) and has admitted to being one C. R. Cole (User_talk:GramereC#SOCKPUPPETRY). Cole is the author of a self-published book on Fraunces (Cole, C. R. [2009]. Samuel Fraunces: "Black Sam". Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4363-9104-7.). Books from a vanity press like Xlibris should hardly be considered reliable sources, but there are two footnotes to the work in question. It appears that this editor, GramereC/Cole, is filling up this article with suppositions from their own work. Cole also appears to be the co-author of a children's book about Fraunces published through another vanity press and mentioned in the article. This is troubling as it rubs up against the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy.

Now, User:GramereC/Cole is making these edits in, what I hope to be good faith, with no ulterior motives. But the sheer number of edits (over 100), many of them minor edits, makes it hard for other editors to correct, smooth, or discuss the alterations. The large number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are hard to make sense of. The recourse to primary sources, iffy and subjective interpretations of those sources, and questionable self-published books mean that these edits are of little value.

I suggest this page be rolled back to a version before User:GramereC/Cole began their "edit marathon" and any changes the editor wants to make should be hashed out in the talk pages first. I'd hate to bring in an outside editor/administrator, but that may have to be done, as so many edits may smack of ownership behavior.

In good faith. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What is happening is that there are multiple claims made in this article which are just not true. There are references placed using sources that say something completely different. I will put things in the talk page here on in. There is a primary source cited with Oliver Francis. I have violated NOTHING. GramereC 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Hello. I see nothing in this article that is demonstrable "just not true." There is, as many authors point out, a legitimate debate on whether Fraunces was white, black, mulatto, and/or passing. You come down on one side, other folks on another. But you can't sweepingly just claim everything you don't like is false. That's what I gather from the tenor of your edits. As I say, I think/hope you are well-meaning, but it comes across as contentious.

You write: "There is a primary source cited with Oliver Francis." Yes, you shoddily give a URL (instead of a proper citation format for a website, like {{cite web}}) for this Oliver Francis. But you give no citation for the claim that Oliver is the maternal grandfather of Samuel Fraunces. The webpage you "cited" doesn't say that. You have provided no secondary source to say that. That makes it supposition. That is what violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. I could point to a random primary source too and say it is Samuel Fraunces's great-grandfather. Saying doesn't make it so. That's is the problem. Same with several of the other primary sources you have made reference too. Now maybe this Oliver is Samuel's granddaddy, but as it stands the article provides no citations to bolster that claim. Get it?

These are some of the points I'm trying to get across. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

PS - Example, here is a baptism for a William Francis: http://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/ChristChurch/view-register.cfm/910?ReturnURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ephilageohistory%2Eorg%2Frdic-images%2FChristChurch%2Fsearch-register%2Ecfm%3Ffn%3D%26ln%3DFrancis%26t%3D%26s%3Dln - He's Samuel Fraunces's brother. Why not? I have no supporting documentation. I just said so. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You I have low vision and it is hard to do this this way I can enter things correctly. As far as which side I come down on here for race I know his YDNA is E Haplogroup and I know his descendants come in all colors. GramereC 19:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

If you have a peer-reviewed, published (i.e. reliable source) for his haplogroup, great, let's see it. Otherwise it can't go in this article. I don't care which side you are on or aren't on. (As an aside, I added the 1838 reference to him being a "negro man" to this article and I think the Fraunces Tavern portrait is fishy and poorly provenanced. But, who cares what I think? On Wikipedia everything must be properly sourced to reliable sources.) TuckerResearch (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok I get it. By those standard Mc Curley reference is out. Have you looked at it? It is photocopies of her notes which never connected her husband to Fraunces. It is absolutely nothing that would be accepted by any lineal society or by any genealogist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I say below, a quick reference to McCurley in the debate about racial identity is fine. A quick reference to your book on racial identity is fine. These should both be in the "Racial identity debate" section. What is not fine is a whole bunch of primary sources that as standalone documents do not necessarily support the suppositions you make in your book. The main text of the article should say we don't know Fraunces's race. The "Racial identity" section should mention what a selection of authors and researchers say, not give out their proofs and arguments. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Students depicting Sam Fraunces

I believe this article needs to be rolled back to before User:GramereC started making a gazillion changes. Then we can decide on the talkpage if anything she has added should be added. Like, I really like this picture at right. But the suppositions and unsupported primary sources; the attacks on authors and the Sons of the Revolution/Fraunces Museum people; and the bad formatting and grammar - these all tell me we need to go back and start from scratch. I get it, GramereC/Cole believes that Fraunces was black. Other people say he was white. GramereC/Cole is trying to prove he was black. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. You take reliable, printed secondary sources and give the info they have. As far as the reputable printed material says, we don't know if Fraunces was black, white, mulatto, and/or passing. Some of our secondary sources say one thing, some say the other. (As an aside, I think he was probably a passing mulatto of some sort, and I just find the Tavern portrait fishy.) But, the article as it was a week ago was good and fine, as it stands now it is a pile of mess. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See, this kind of stuff being added is really troubling, because another editor had to remove it, here is the diff of the removal with the explanation. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok section by section from your link here. Section 1: If you want a copy of Samuel Fraunces Will the current file # is the one I placed in the article. The other reference takes an in person visit and possible overnight to even get a microfilmed copy. The form for the Registrar of Wills to obtain documents has a file # and it is #W-219-1795. Section 2 That material has to be added it is accurate and appropriate. That which was taken out was placed later. Lossing Why he was not the only one telling the story it grew with progression of time. Section 3 That info is included back in, in chronological order. Section 4 That statement about Richmond Hill is referenced where???? Added info is sourced. Section 5 The progression to the Scribner's article is important as the whisper down the lane tale grows. The information removed was placed after the new added look down to section 7. Section 6 The same thing sources added in chronological order only thing removed were not sourced statements of opinion. Section 7 Same thing added chronological info and removed not sourced statement of opinion added others back in chronologically. Section 8 9 and 10 add back in all the sourced info again in chronological order. GramereC 13:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Reboot

I believe this article needs to be rolled back to before User:GramereC started making a gazillion changes. Then we can decide on the talkpage if anything she has added should be added. Like, I really like this picture at right. But the suppositions and unsupported primary sources; the attacks on authors and the Sons of the Revolution/Fraunces Museum people; and the bad formatting and grammar - these all tell me we need to go back and start from scratch. I get it, GramereC/Cole believes that Fraunces was black. Other people say he was white. GramereC/Cole is trying to prove he was black. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. You take reliable, printed secondary sources and give the info they have. As far as the reputable printed material says, we don't know if Fraunces was black, white, mulatto, and/or passing. Some of our secondary sources say one thing, some say the other. (As an aside, I think he was probably a passing mulatto of some sort, and I just find the Tavern portrait fishy.) But, the article as it was a week ago was good and fine, as it stands now it is a pile of mess. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See, this kind of stuff being added is really troubling, because another editor had to remove it, here is the diff of the removal with the explanation. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If good and fine include links that lead nowhere. Incorrect citations. Citations that lead you to something different then reboot away.

If you are unwilling to read the citations in question then you should not be editing.

The article is "SUPPOSED" to be about Fraunces. If you want to lead with a portrait that is not good and fine that pretty much says the article is about the guy in this portrait. The portrait Drowne purchased at the auction in 1913. That would be the same Drowne who provided the letters for the Phoebe story that are the same letters Lossing references. Why not keep the string of stuff with no sources and say Jenny from the FTM said this 10 years ago so we have to use it today because Jenny from FTM has all the info that is the info. If Jenny doesn't have it Kym Rice does. You do not want anyone to post the references that say otherwise and if we do we have to leave Jenny and Kym up there even if they would strike themselves. Oh and I am not to use any references to anything I published but if I post the primary document it is original research REALLY. Just what I want in an encyclopedia article. GramereC 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What horrid condescension. You state: "If you are unwilling to read the citations in question then you should not be editing." What condescension. It seems to be impossible to get through to you the difference between Wikipedia and a scholarly monograph. If you were writing a book (like your Samuel Fraunces "Black Sam") then present primary sources all you want and interpret them all day long. But when you put crappily cited primary sources in this encyclopedia text and then tell us how YOU think they should be interpreted, that is original research, which Wikipedia frowns upon. Bullcorn like when you through up a random will for a Pheobe Thomson and claim it is Elizabeth Thomson. That is YOUR opinion of a primary source's meaning. Or when you throw out the random will of a Jamaica Fraunces and claim it backs up your claim about Samuel Fraunces. That is YOUR opinion of a primary source's meaning. Or when you put up a baptism record for an Oliver Francis and claim it is Samuel Fraunces's maternal grandfather with no proof. That is YOUR opinion of a primary source's meaning. By your logic, I could find a will for a dude named Francis/Faunces in New York in 1700, stick it in this article, and write: "This is Samuel Fraunces's grandfather." And when you say, "No it isn't." I'll reply by condescendingly calling you an idiot who doesn't understand primary sources and accuse you of being part of a grand conspiracy to destroy Samuel Fraunces's reputation. And when you complain some more I'll say to you (like you have said to us on this talk page): "Incorrect citations" and "Really primary document refernces???" (whatever a "refernce" is?) and "You would remove them and replace them with what the tourist edition of opinion?" Does that sound fair? Fight your obtuse condescension with obtuse condesension. I tried to be nice, and understanding, and ecumenical, and show good faith. But no more when you reply with crap like "you should not be editing." TuckerResearch (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up race is placing the Race into the main section??? Then using two citations right of the bat which were paid for by Fraunces Tavern Museum and the SR. Then in the next section Origins, another reference to Kym's paid for work.

There is a tradition that Fraunces was of French ancestry and came from the West Indies.[1]:125 There are claims that he was born in Jamaica,[13] Haiti,[10][14] and Martinique,[15] and the possibility that he was related to a Fraunces family in Barbados.[12]:25 Although his surname implies that he was of French extraction, there is no evidence that he spoke with a French accent.[1]:125 There is also no record of where he learned his skills as a cook, caterer, and restaurateur.[1]:125

Somebody is either SR or working for the museum and posting. GramereC 18:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

editing for presidents household changes.

Samuel Fraunces bought a property he had rented in 1792 on Filbert St transferring it later that year to his son Andrew. It is three blocks from the Presidents house.There are deed references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What sources do you have for these deeds? Primary? Secondary? What text do you plan on putting in the article? How does this fit into the article? TuckerResearch (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary of course that is what i have been trying to do is place the primary source rather than a continnual Kym Rice says. How much of the deed abstract grantor grantee stuff do you want? After all it is public record. You can e-mail me at GramereC@aol.com as I see you e-mail with others here. GramereC 19:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Okay, see this is the problem. You need to read the Wikipedia policy on original research and primary sources at Wikipedia:No original research because you are not getting it. I'll quote: "...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [...] Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You can't just throw out a primary source, like the Oliver thing above, and then throw out your interpretation of it. Wikipedia doesn't work like that.

And no, I don't want any e-mails. If you read above you'll note I think everything on Wikipedia should happen on Wikipedia, not behind the "closed doors" of an e-mail. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OOPS, OK I get it. Now in the Revolutionary War category I have two prints of the Asia. One is mine so I will not add it as everyone thinks I am asserting ownership. The other is in public domain.. I would like to add the picture.GramereC 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

You lost me here. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It is believed that he was born in the West Indies about 1722, computed from his obituary 13 October 1795, in the Gazette of the United States, Philadelphia, which lists his age as 73. Descendants of Fraunces claim he was born in Jamaica,[6] Haiti,[7] and other traditions claim Martinique,[8] and some say he lived in Barbados.[3]:25 I am not the one who placed this with the reference to my book should I remove it???GramereC 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

I think I said your book should stay in in this one instance because of the text put in the article: "Descendants of Fraunces claim..." - it was a supportable instance of using your book for a mere claim mentioned quickly. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This reference is incorrect under Pheobe the legend. Philadelphia Register of Wills, Book X (ten), page 348, proven October 22, 1795. The will is filed #W-219-1795, The Registrar of Wills, 29 May 2015. This was retrieved specifically for the purpose of seeing if Samuel Jr was identified as Samuel M. He was not that is a fabrication. I would like to change it to the correct info Will file #W-219-1795. GramereC 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

I think most primary source references should be removed, especially if it is impossible to properly say it belongs to this person or that person. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Really primary document refernces??? You would remove them and replace them with what the tourist edition of opinion. It is an Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Edward Fraunces → Samuel Fraunces?

User:GramereC put this in the article, clunkily cited to a 1885 article in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register: "The name Fraunces is seen with one family from England dating back to Henry VIII, and that is the family of Edward Fraunces who died in 1741. The french extraction so often referred to is that of the Jaquelin family from Vendee France and the grandmother of Edward Fraunces." But the document in question (linked here: https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhistorv39wate#page/n681/mode/2up/search/fraunces) is a transcription of Edward Fraunces's 1740 will. No source is given to connect this Edward Fraunces to the subject of this article, Samuel Fraunces. This is the type of supposition, the original research in primary sources that does not belong in Wikipedia. What proof is there that this Edward Fraunces is an ancestor or relative of Samuel Fraunces? None. All such unsupportable, extraneous stuff should be removed from this article. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

They are all removed at this point both from me and others. I have one more picture to post.

GramereC 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Household Washington vs Presidents, origins and death

There are a few little things in other sections to change or add.

If we change the household to Washington's there could be the addition of the correspondence back and forth about glassware, dishes, madeira and the like. Showing there are more than a couple of letters between Washington and Fraunces. Include the Hector and Andromache from Tudor Place with reference to the letters about it and that it is one of the only personal items that survived. Debated still is was the bible Washington sworn in on the bible belonging to Sam?

Origins should just come out. If the vanity press source of the Baptism is unacceptable then we have no idea where he is from or who his parents are. There is DNA and it matches to English descendants but no authorization to share that info. We can include what others like WEB Dubois said but no actual primary source is available. I have photos of the baptism but they are UK records and I have no authority.

Death Fraunces stayed in Philadelphia through the Yellow Fever and one of the household members died from the fever. It is iffy about why he did not return to the household but certain he owned the "Golden Tuns" at the time of death.GramereC 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Supposition

Please stop placing supposition into the article. Address race with race.

The family has records at both Christ Church and Trinity just because Kym Rice did not use them does not make them invalid.

These citations of MASS ARREST ORDERED BY WASHINGTON????? false the citation does not say this. You have also posted erroneous citations for Will's. We had replaced them all with primary documents but you insist on placing erroneous citation to document your argument which is not what we are trying to do her.

Boring History Guy Says:

1. This poisoning attempt – if it occurred – would have taken place in late June 1776 at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in Manhattan. WHO SAID THIS WHEN????

2. The housekeeper there was a widow named Mary Smith,[82] MRS SMITH WAS THE HOUSEKEEPER BEFORE ELIZABETH THOMPSON (NOT PHEBE) Mrs Smith was also the owner of the house used as headquarter before Richmond hill. That citationn identifes she was a housekeeper at Richmond Hill although there were other female servants.

3. Fraunces's tavern was about two miles away, and provided catered meals for the general and his staff. The map shows us where his tavern is.

All of this is just supposition. Stop putting it back.GramereC 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

4. Samuel Fraunces also was arrested, and held until he was released for lack of evidence. In his 1785 petition to Congress, Fraunces swore that he had thwarted an assassination plot against Washington, but the petition contained no mention of poisoning.[12] How do you get that from the congressional record????? It is not what it says at all again it is some kind of supposition for your argument. IT is coming out reword it and cite it with a correct citation if it is true.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

5. At the time of Hickey's June 1776 hanging, Fraunces's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, was a 10-year-old child.[15] But thirteen years later she married Atcheson Thompson,[16] and – coincidentally – became another "Elizabeth Thompson."[note 2]HMMM how many Elizabeth Thompson's and Mrs Smith's are we up to now. Usually someone gets a nickname at that point to avoid confusion. So was it hei daughter or wasn't it???? you added it??? WHO SAID THIS??? Taking it out.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

6. Scribner Times is there own reference we get it that the Fraunces Tavern Museum wants the history one way and no other but their history is BAD replaced with the primary source of Scribner's.

Why do you keep on putting tertiary at best references in when there are primary and secondary sources available??? It is an article about Fraunces not the Tavern Museum. GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

7. SR, writes that "The use of ' black' as a prefix to a nickname was not uncommon in the 18th century and did not necessarily indicate African heritage of an individual. For instance, Admiral Richard Lord Howe (1762- 1799), one of Britain’s best known and respected seamen – and a white man – was commonly called 'Black Dick,' a nickname his brother Sir William Howe gave to him as descriptive of the Admiral’s swarthy complexion."[70] Patton concludes that, "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure."[70] two citations same source that little PDF for the kids if that is not a block quote what is???? GramereC 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

I really have no clue what "Address race with race" means. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Washington's household

I am asked where these numbers are coming from, 20 household servants??? are there pay records in Washington's papers? The number of the enslaved traveling with is much less. Any answers?GramereC 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

The response from Mt Vernon was Don't know have to look. Where did they come from???????? GramereC 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

So the email I got from Mary Thompson at Mt Vernon (my summation) says, that there are three sources to use to describe the size of the household but no known source where they are all added up nice and neat in a chart to quote.

Most recent would be Ed Lawler's Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 29; no 4; but from another Lawler article the total list is only 15 at Philadelphia.

There is a Tobias Lear account book at Yale maybe somebody has done a chart from that????

Then there is Stephen Decatur Jr. Private Affairs of George Washington: from the Records and Accounts of Tobias Lear, Esquire, hie Secretary (Boston MA, Riverside Press for Houghton Mifflin Company 1932) where he comments on records retrieved from June 1795, but his list totals 20. If we want to keep these numbers in they should correspond with the references available. GramereC 19:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Portrait again

Portrait of Samuel Fraunces (c.1770-85), unknown artist, Fraunces Tavern Museum.

Here we go again: "Early Americans at Ehrich's," American Art News, vol. 7, no. 32 (June 12, 1909), p. 6. This is a bad reference. It is a simple fix as far as the reference goes just put American Arts News... first then the description at the head of the column or the column #. I wish that solved it but once again the wording does not match the statement, it says, "Among the paintings by unknown artist are portraits of August Washington, the father of George and his first wife, Jane and of Samuel Fraunces, the proprietor of the famous New York Tavern".

There is absolutely nothing that says this is the portrait Drowne purchased in 1913. It is yet another reference to another portrait by an unknown artist with NO DESCRIPTION. Is this your original research find that it is the same portrait purchased by Drowne? Do we really have to get the old newspaper article again where folks are searching for a portrait of Samuel Fraunces among other because there is still no portrait. Then Drowne comes up with one from Auction. There are also listing which say there is a portrait of his mother and sister. Those turn out to be the mother of Samuel Mifflin Frances and her grand daughter. It has also been said that the portrait referred to in 1909 was the one of Samuel Mifflin Frances.GramereC 01:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

"If you are unwilling to read the citations in question then you should not be editing." "Really primary document refernces??? You would remove them and replace them with what the tourist edition of opinion." (I am quoting you, by the way.) TuckerResearch (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

TuckerResearch. Pull up the reference and read. It is for an Art catalog no one has connected it to the painting displayed EVER!!!!!!!! Here it is in PDF if you can't find it.

https://archive.org/details/jstor-25590461 Where does it say Drowne bought it?? where is the description??? Really quote away.

GramereC 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I find your condescension appalling and don't even know what you're talking about because you can't appear to make a cogent argument ever. I guess you're saying the source from American Art News is bad because it is a primary source that is being interpreted as a linked to the portrait bought in 1913. If that is your argument, I get it. I am removing that sentence from the article. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

talk oh you are cute. My argument is that there are multiple references that are not accurate. If there is a statement followed by a reference I would hope that yo could click on the reference and see what it is. You can do that but then when yo go to the reference it is for something other than the statement which it accompanied. There are sooo many of them it is awful. Yes that is a reference to American Art News with a painting from prior to 1913 saying it is Fraunces but there is nothing to say it is Samuel Fraunces. Now there is yet another reference to a painting in the collection of Anna E Macy which was a lot of 82 paintings and that one is the one that Drowne bought. The Annual meeting held in November of 1913 references the painting. The meeting was after Nov 14, 1913 because they recognize the obituaries of the membership. So we are backing out of the bad description but now we have a new bad description from a 1913 sale of 84 paintings offered by the wife if the son of a shipbuilder again with no connection to Fraunces.GramereC 20:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

My mom says I am pretty cute.TuckerResearch (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

GramereC. You wrote: "Yes that is a reference to American Art News with a painting from prior to 1913 saying it is Fraunces but there is nothing to say it is Samuel Fraunces."

The actual quote: "Among the paintings by unknown artists are portraits of August Washington, the father of George, and of his first wife, Jane, and of Samuel Fraunces, the proprietor of the famous New York tavern." — American Art News, June 12, 1909, page 6, column 1

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Portraits plural

Sam Fraunces, circa-1900 engraving, from an undated ink sketch attributed to John Trumbull.

There is absolutely no citation that attributes this to Trumbull other than the fact he has Washington Paintings while in Philadelphia. This is soo out of line. There is absolutely no citation for it.

There is a pretty good argument that it was done by Patience Lovell Wright who was a wax sculpture and artist that displayed at Vaux Hall but you can not say that either. We are limited in the identification done by Alice Morse Earle. GramereC 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Well I see we have a portrait section at the end. Here is the annual meeting Which does not say which sale he acquired it from. If there is a receipt it has never been published. If it is Anna E Macy collection from November of 1913 she had 84 paintings. The date of the annual meeting is November of 1913, the painting was acquired before then. Again you are not only reading into this you are making statements for the first time without documented sources.

GramereC 20:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

"There is absolutely no citation that attributes this to Trumbull other than the fact he has Washington Paintings while in Philadelphia." - There is a citation to Rice, who you hate with the passion of a thousand suns, but in Wikipedialand it is a valid secondary source citation.

"There is a pretty good argument that it was done by Patience Lovell Wright..." - Do you have a valid, reliable secondary source citation? Not a primary source, a secondary source? I mean, beside your ravings?

"We are limited in the identification done by Alice Morse Earle." - Yes, a citation in an old secondary source adjudged valid and reliable.

"Again you are not only reading into this you are making statements for the first time without documented sources." - No, it is cited to a valid webpage at the Fraunces Museum. You just disagree with that. So you say it is unreliable.

Please, please, please, please, please read: (1) Wikipedia:No original research; (2) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; and (3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

TuckerResearch (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar with the no original research you apply it in unusual ways. IT is original research to say the portrait is attributed to Trumbull as the artist. WHo wrote that??GramereC 21:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the SR description it is a portrait by an unknown artist attributted by them to be Samuel Fraunces. Trumbull is added here.GramereC 21:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"IT is original research to say the portrait is attributed to Trumbull as the artist. WHo wrote that??" - No, it is what a reliable author says in a reliable source. It's just Kym Rice, so you disagree with it. But, for the kajillionth time, you don't recognize how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rice says one thing, we cite it. Blockson says another thing, we cite it. Get it? I guess not. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Bunk

It is BUNK to present Elizabeth Fraunces as the (likely fictional) character "Phoebe Fraunces". Elizabeth Fraunces was a 10-year-old girl in June 1776, rather young for an affair with Thomas Hickey, or to have been an accomplice in an assassination plot against George Washington.

Dr. Kym S. Rice has documented that none of Fraunces's children were employed at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in June 1776. (Kym S. Rice, A Documentary History of Fraunces Tavern, 1985, p. 72.) No evidence has been presented that supports the THEORY (not fact) that "Phoebe" was Elizabeth Fraunces's nickname.

It is unconscionable to steal the burial record of an obscure black woman, Phoebe Thomson,[3] and try to pass her off as "Phoebe Fraunces".[4] Thomson died in 1836 at age 60, which means that in June 1776 – the time of the Phoebe Fraunces legend and the supposed "poisoned peas" incident – Thomson either was an infant or hadn't been born yet.

Find-A-Grave, like Wikipedia, relies on the honesty and good faith of its contributors. I hope Wikipedia will not be duped by bogus genealogy. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment

About 10 days ago I had suggested to the two major writers of this article that they each write out a full version of the article as they would like to see it. I did this because it was clear that they simply weren't communicating with each other and the differences were deep-seated. As I understand it the 2 versions are ready.

• User:BoringHistoryGuy/sandbox by BoringHistoryGuy and
• Draft:Samuel Fraunces by GramereC

I'll suggest that readers take their time and review each - they are pretty long and detailed. Then we should select one version as the base article to be used here. At that point we can discuss whether sections can be replaced into the base article from the non-selected article. Given that we can find 2 or 3 folks to read both articles, we should be back on track with an article acceptable to the majority within a few days. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I vote for the version of BoringHistoryGuy - it is based on reliable secondary sources (not interpretations of primary sources), it has a NPOV on the controversy over race (it gives equal mention to both sides), it is more encyclopedic, and it is properly Wiki-formatted — TuckerResearch (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's give @GramereC: a couple of days to respond. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto on that. Loosing academic standards is like loosing one's virtue. Once it is gone . . . . . . . . . . . .......... Carptrash (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have to agree with the above, especially on the formatting, and NPOV. Since there is nothing here in favor of the GramereC version and we've waited far too long, I've just gone ahead and put the BHG version in as the text. This can be considered to be closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Having jut returned I see we are pretty much nowhere. You do great diservice to everyone using Wikipedia but then I guess you have quit an agenda. Will pick trough again as I receive comments through e-mail. It is surely not closed by the Gang of three.GramereC 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

@GramereC: I'm afraid you don't understand our rules on Wikipedia. There are lots of rules you don't seem to understand, e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, but the most important by far is WP:Consensus. We do things according to consensus around here. There is no way that you can force material into the article when it is you alone, ignoring the judgements of four experienced Wikipedians. You have to communicate with other users and let them decide if your additions/removals are consistent with our rules. I know you disagree with us but I'm afraid there is no way that you are going to get the result that you want. I don't know what else to tell you, except that just reverting the article against 4 people who support the other version never works. See WP:3RR. Perhaps it might help if I direct you to a very experienced, very respected Wikipedian who can guide you in your options, and give you very good advice. I'd guess, however, that you don't want my advice on this - if you do, just ask and I'll ping him. Otherwise please find somebody else you trust and ask them what the best thing to do from here is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh you want three others to pick a side LOL tell Boring history Guy they are not sock puppets because everytime someone else tries he says they are me nice scam you got going.GramereC 15:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry GramereC but this just doesn't make any sense. I am not a sock-puppet of anybody. I've been around here 11 years and many people know that I am not a sockpuppet. BoringHistoryGuy and Carptrash are definitely not sockpuppets. I don't know so much about Tuckerresearch but see know reason to think that he is a sockpuppet. You do understand of course that when brand new users show up at an obscure article, with no editing history and an apparent agenda, people will naturally suspect socking.

BTW, you've now made 3 reverts in about an hour. If you make another one I will report you to WP:3RRN. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please report!!! I already asked for some type of intervention. I can not believe you want all those bad links and fake citations back up and I am pretty sure if ANYONE who reads the citation edits they will do the same thing. You have made no effort to fix any of the broken links or BAD references. GramereC 17:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:3RRN Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Anything of value?

TuckerResearch, Carptrash, Smallbones, 7&6=thirteen,
Do you folks see anything of value added to the article by GramereC that should be retained? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The correct working links and the correct citations would be good. How bout taking them one by one instead of reposting the broken links and bad citations.GramereC 17:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

I have always been on record here saying that we should, reflecting the reliable secondary literature out there, say that there is a controversy about his race, i.e., some people say he was black, some people say he was white. (I have actually butted heads with User:BoringHistoryGuy on this issue, if you look at the talk page.) What I can't abide is User:GramereC's attempt to make this a position paper on her contention that he was definitely black, filling it up with dubiously and contentiously interpreted primary sources. (To say nothing of the poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, and wiki-formatting.) TuckerResearch (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

PS - I have p;aced both purported images of Sam Fraunces at the top of the article.

PPS - I also like the image User:GramereC posted from Rutgers where students are portraying Fraunces in blackface.

PPPS - I also would like to remind that I fought for the inclusion of User:GramereC's self-published book in two footnotes concerning Fraunces's ancestry and the Phoebe legend. I believe in having these citations to show the controversy and debate. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

TuckerResearch, Carptrash, Smallbones, 7&6=thirteen

I would like to see this article concentrate on something other than race. But you folks keep moving it to the front seat of the bus. You also keep adding Phebe into the mix give her and Hickey their own page link them up. Then for source material you all use Kym Rice to be used at multiple points. When there are actual sources who deal with the material. I do not get it, is William Finck working on this? I have only a day between teaching seminars this week then all weekend. I will post under each article heading that is the best I can do. If this is what you want your contribution to be then go for it I have to reenter the real world where folks are laughing and appalled at this material they way it is presented. CR COLE GramereC@aol.com Constance ColeGramereC 18:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

User:GramereC:

"I would like to see this article concentrate on something other than race." You are the one who keeps trying to turn the article into a position paper on his race.

"But you folks keep moving it to the front seat of the bus." I'll ignore your semi-racist statement here. But consensus thought it best to mention the race controversy in the lede because other editors kept trying to change the article to suit their purposes. That and a lot of people look up Fraunces on Wikipedia because of his race.

"When there are actual sources who deal with the material." What you don't seem to be getting is that Wikipedia is not about primary sources! It is about reliable secondary sources. You keep putting in primary sources that could maybe be linked to Fraunces and disclaiming upon them that they prove Fraunces was black. For the umpteenth time: that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

"...is William Finck working on this?" I have no clue who this is.

"...you all use Kym Rice to be used at multiple points." Kym Rice's work is a proper secondary source.

"I will post under each article heading that is the best I can do." If you do this on the talk page, great. Then consensus can decide if the material is suitable to put in the article. But based on your previous work, I won't hold my breath on any of it being NPOV or a reliable source. (Look those up again.)

"...folks are laughing and appalled at this material..." I doubt it. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In response to the fact that BoringHistoryGuy is working overtime to exclude any references to his African Heritage or any one or anything that references this.

GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No I do not. When did wikipedia do the poll to see why people looked up Fraunces?? RELIABLE IS THE KEY WORD HERE. The only primary sources for him are the letters back and forth baptism etc. When people take a secondary source which has a citation and then write that it says something completely different then it is unreliable. Case in point the memorial and the military records for Hickey. Newspapers with the incorrect date taken from a tertiary source.

GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I get the purpose it is to benefit readers not editors. benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars.

GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Kym Rice is not the only source. I think the article now has her 6 times in the first two sections and a mere 14 more time through out.

GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

TuckerResearch So if you find this sources referenced let me know. Doubt away you know it is WRONG!!!GramereC 19:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Neo-Nazis

TuckerResearch, Carptrash, Smallbones, 7&6=thirteen,
"I do not get it, is William Finck working on this?" — GramereC is asserting that we're Neo-Nazis, like William Finck (who I'd never heard of). == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

So she called us Neo-Nazis? Is there any way she can be blocked? TuckerResearch (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

TuckerResearch, Carptrash, Smallbones, 7&6=thirteen,

GramereC went just to the edge of calling us that. More concerning to me are the actions I included in my 6 April 2017 complaint. And most disturbing, is her effort to corrupt Wikipedia the way she has corrupted Find-A-Grave.

I don't know the process, but I think the above and her repeated edit-warring could be grounds for preventive blocking:

1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;

2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;

What do the rest of you think? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps her behavior will change after being blocked (a second time) for edit warring on this article. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not so terrible. When you consider that we are known by the company we keep, being associated with TuckerResearch, BoringHistoryGuy, Smallbones, 7&6=thirteen,
is not the worst possible fate. This William Finck chap is slightly different from us, I looked at the link BHG provided, but honestly, I was going to take a shower anyway. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't know William Finck from Adam. Looking at the picture, I observed he has an affinity for Swastikas. I always felt that the Nazis misappropriated a perfectly good and worldwide symbol. Another reason to despise them, I think.

In my experience, WP:Civil can be enforced for comments on article talk pages. Calling editors for no apparent reason "Neonazis" could actually be a reason for a short block. One is supposed to comment on the edits, not the editor. I'll give User:GramereC a warning. I would suggest he apologize and withdraw the stupid metaphor or comparison. Name calling only undercuts your case. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There was this fellow once who wanted to display his collection of swastikas (none of it Nazi related) at the library where I worked and it was quite a task getting it through the library BoD. One member just had such a visceral reaction to them that she just could not get past it. Eventually she did and the display was actually a lot of fun. Carptrash (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"BoringHistoryGuy is working overtime to exclude any references to his African Heritage or any one or anything that references this. GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)"
User:GramereC: If there were legitimate evidence that Samuel Fraunces had been of African descent, I'd be shouting it to the hills! As I wrote in my 6 April 2017 complaint on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard:
"User:GramereC – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography."
Calling people Neo-Nazis just because they disagree with you is not going to convince anyone. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Origins

Really is this necessary then almost every statement is Kym Rice citation. Certainly makes it concise.GramereC 18:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

User:GramereC, if you feel that the sources used in this article are not reliable, you may challenge them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I will when I get time again. In the mean time I would appreciate if the citations are wrong and they are corrected that they be left alone. I know you have no control but I would appreciate it. GramereC 21:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Disappeared section

A big chunk of this Talk page's What is happening? section, above, disappeared on Thursday afternoon, but the change doesn't show up in the diff
I just re-added it, but don't understand what's going on. The discussion involved TuckerResearch and GramereC. Is this some sort of vandalism, or an action by an administrator? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. It disappears between this diff and this diff. I'll chalk it up to a glitch. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I re-added 3 more disappeared sections between TuckerResearch and GramereC. The same glitch? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, these last 3 sections were archived by a bot on Wednesday night: diff But it's odd to have discussions from last month get archived ahead of discussions from 2013. And Talk:Samuel Fraunces/Archive 1 does not have the formerly missing parts of the What is happening? section. Glitch City. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The archive bot is set to take inactive discussions away after 30 days. If necessary the archive timeout can be increased. I think setting it to 3 months is more logical. It appears that Archive 5 was created out of sequence by mistake, so I have deleted that page (it was blank). EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston. I think I've set up the current discussions at 3 months. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:EdJohnston for fixing Archive 5 and changing the bot settings. User:BoringHistoryGuy, I created the archiving bot and set it at 30 days. I thought the talk page needed some archiving. (I know that the bot might not archive things with no dates, and GramereC doesn't know how to properly sign her comments.) TuckerResearch (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

So YOU'RE to blame! I added an Archive-in-90-days template to each of the current threads. So we're good well into the summer. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The thread from 2013 is being kept by the bot because someone added new comments to it in April, 2017. Not all comments in a thread have to be dated. A thread will be 'immortal' only in a case where all its comments are undated. That seldom happens if there is more than one post. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:BoringHistoryGuy, I guess I am to "blame" for the three comments moved to the archive, though I still don't know what happened with the "What is happening?" section. User:EdJohnston, thank you for the clarification. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

TuckerResearch. You know I'm kidding. I'm glad you added the archive. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I know. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

TuckerResearch. A glitch masked most of the What is happening? section above on May 4. I re-added the missing discussion on May 6: diff This glitch seems to have been cause by an editor accidentally erasing part of a bot's signature.

I just corrected the bot's signature, and the masked section reappeared. Since it was redundant, I deleted the part I re-added on May 6. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)